and the duplication of services, resulting in the expenditure, out of
rates and taxes in the United Kingdom, on the maintenance, schooling,
and medical attendance of the poorer classes of nearly seventy millions
sterling annually. During the past five years, even whilst the Royal
Commission was sitting, this multiplication of overlapping authorities
has proceeded at a great pace. In 1905 the Unemployed Workmen Act
created a rival authority for relieving the able-bodied man. In 1906 the
Education (Provision of Meals) Act, in 1907 the Education
(Administrative Provisions) Act, and in 1908 the Education (Scotland)
Act and the Children Act, set up the Local Education Authority as a
rival to the Poor Law Authority in regard to providing food, medical
attendance, and all other necessaries for children found destitute at
school. In 1908, too, the Old Age Pensions Act established a rival
authority for the maintenance of the destitute aged. Meanwhile, the
Local Health Authorities have been told to take over the destitute man
who has phthisis, and to extend in many directions the range of their
work; the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy has declared that a new
authority must be found for the vagrants, and the Royal Commission on
the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded has come to the very
authoritative conclusion that all grades and kinds of mentally defective
persons must be taken out of the Poor Law altogether. The result is
that, already in 1910, the number of persons being actually fed at the
public expense by the Local Education Authorities, the Local Health
Authorities, the Local Lunacy Authorities, the Local Unemployment
Authorities, and the Local Pension Authorities, _exceeds, in the
aggregate, the number of persons being fed by the Poor Law Authorities_.
For every separate section of the pauper host there are now at least two
Public Authorities at work--sometimes three or four Public
Authorities--with duplicated machinery, overlapping services, officers
competing with each other on rival principles of action, _in not a few
cases simultaneously providing for the same persons without knowing of
each other's work_.
The Poor Law Authorities themselves, and the bulk of their work, the
Royal Commission found extremely unsatisfactory, and are unanimous in
condemning, not so much from any personal shortcomings of the 24,000
guardians as from the nature of the task to which they had been set. The
assistance that they dispense, by its very nature, comes too late to be
preventive of the occurrence of destitution, and, in the majority of
cases, too late to be curative. Whatever may be decided as to its
successor, it is clear that the existing Poor Law system, and the
existing Poor Law Authority, must, to use the expressive words of Mr.
Balfour's election address, be "scrapped."
The Majority Commissioners hold, on the assumption that every case of
pauperism implies a moral defect, that there should be, in each
locality, one Authority and only one Authority to deal with persons
requiring maintenance from public funds. They, therefore, recommend the
establishment of a new "Destitution Authority" to deal only with persons
who are destitute, and only when they are destitute; and for such
persons to provide, from birth to burial, in distinctively Poor Law
Institutions, or under distinctively Poor Law officials, all that is
required. It is admitted that this involves the repeal of the Unemployed
Workmen Act and the Education (Provision of Meals) Act. We must leave
politicians to judge whether it is practicable to thrust the unemployed
workman, and the child found hungry at school, back into the Poor Law,
even if the Poor Law is called by another name. But even if this were
done, the Majority Report would still leave the overlap as regards the
destitute aged which is involved in the Old Age Pensions Act; the
overlap as regards the destitute sick which is involved in the
evergrowing activities of the 700 rate-maintained municipal hospitals of
the Local Health Authorities; the overlap with regard to destitute
children which is involved by the activities of the Local Education
Authorities and the Home Office under the Industrial Schools Acts, and
now under the Children Act. And the Majority Commissioners cannot, it
appears, make up their minds[861] whether or not they wish the
recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded to be
carried into law, and thus end the overlap between the Poor Law
Authority and the Lunacy Authority.
[861] See Appendix B (extract from the Minority Report for
Scotland).
The Majority Report purports to give the new "Public Assistance
Authority" some guidance as to policy. It is to relieve none but those
at present entitled to relief, and therefore, in all cases, to wait
until destitution has set in. Thus the aid will, as now, come too late
to prevent or to cure. On the other hand, the "deterrent" attitude of
1834 is to be given up; the workhouse is to be abolished; and "curative
and restorative treatment," at home or in an appropriate institution, is
to be afforded to every case. Yet in order to afford to certain classes
of applicants methods of relief and treatment more suitable than any
Public Assistance Authority is to be allowed to afford, a complete
system of Voluntary Aid Committees is to be set up, and to such
Committees these particular applicants are to be required to apply,
whether or not they prefer charity to public aid.
Against these proposals of the Majority Report the Minority
Commissioners protest that they will not put a stop to the calamitous
and extravagant overlapping of services and duplication of work which
now exists or to the demoralising chaos that prevails as to recovery of
cost. Moreover, the Minority Commissioners hold that if the community
restricts itself to relieving persons _at the crisis of their
destitution_, and this is a necessary condition of any Poor Law, or of
the action of any Destitution Authority, whatever its name, the
community cannot, without grave financial danger, and still graver
danger to character, depart from the principles of 1834. However
unpopular may be the doctrine, it is still true that if destitute
persons are to be given "curative and restorative treatment" without
deterrent conditions and without the stigma of pauperism, a constantly
increasing number of persons will, _unless they are in some way
prevented from sinking into destitution_, come in and out of the Poor
Law as it suits their convenience, to their own grave demoralisation and
at a ruinous cost to the nation. But the heart and conscience of the
community will not tolerate the subjection of all the million paupers
indiscriminately to deterrent conditions, especially as these have now
been proved to be seriously detrimental in their effects. The whole
phraseology of the Majority Report, and its proposals themselves, afford
convincing testimony to the necessity of giving up the idea of a
"deterrent" Poor Law. And the Majority Report gives us no substitute for
this deterrence--unless, indeed, it can really be imagined that the
operation of the Voluntary Aid Committees is somehow to protect us.
The only effective substitute for deterrence is, the Minority
Commissioners suggest, the Principle of Prevention--prevention, that is,
not merely of pauperism, but of the very occurrence of destitution. This
negatives the very idea of a Destitution Authority, whatsoever its
designation or its policy. It is in vain to hope that any Poor Law, or
any Destitution Authority, however improved, can ever prevent or even
diminish destitution; because, confined as it is to dealing with a
destitution which has occurred, it is inherently precluded by its very
nature from attacking any of the causes which produce the destitution
that is perpetually coming on its hands. Thus, the twenty millions
sterling now spent annually in the United Kingdom on the mere relief of
destitution do practically nothing to prevent the creation, year by
year, of new masses of destitution. Even the educational work which the
Poor Law Authorities do for the Poor Law children is largely vitiated by
their inherent disability to exercise any supervision over the life of
the child before and after the crisis of destitution. The greater part
of the expenditure on the Poor Law Medical Service is, so far as any
gain to the health of the nation is concerned, wasted because no sick
person can legally be treated in the incipient stage of his disease when
it may still be curable; the Poor Law doctor must always wait until
destitution has set in! This--so the Minority Commissioners claim--must
necessarily be the same in the case of the "Public Assistance Authority"
proposed in the Majority Report, or, indeed, in the case of anybody set
to administer a Poor Law. On the other hand, the fact that universal
provision of some services to all persons, whether destitute or not, has
been adopted by Parliament, has led to a duplication and confusions of
functions between the old Poor Law Authority and the new Preventive
Authorities. This daily-increasing overlap and duplication can only be
ended by either stripping the new Preventive Authorities of functions
entrusted to them within the last few years by Parliament--which is
plainly impossible--or by abolishing the Poor Law. Hence the only safe,
as well as the only advantageous way out of this confusion is to go
forward on the Principle of Prevention. This Principle of Prevention may
take the form, on the one hand, of altering the environment, on the
other, of treating the individual. But if the cost of curative
treatment, or even of altering the environment, is to be borne by the
community, it is essential, on grounds of economy, that there should be
a searching out of all incipient cases and such a disciplinary
supervision as will prevent persons from becoming destitute through
neglected infancy, neglected childhood, preventable illness, and
voluntary unemployment.
In this disciplinary supervision over those who repeatedly fall into the
morass of destitution, or who, by failing to fulfil their social
obligations, show signs of entering upon the descent into that morass,
we see a more humane, as well as a more effective form of "deterrence"
than that of the 1834 Poor Law. The newer preventive authorities deter
from falling into destitution, not by fear of what will happen when the
fall has taken place, but by timely insistence on the performance of the
social duties that will prevent the fall. The parents who, under the
pressure of the Local Education Authority, are induced and compelled to
send their children to school from 5 to 14 years of age are not only
effectually "deterred" from living on their children's earnings, but are
also prevented from so far neglecting their offspring as to fail to get
them to school regularly and punctually, or to fail to maintain them in
a state fit for admission to school, according to a standard that is
constantly rising. In some districts the Local Education Authority has
even gone far, by means of inspection, instruction, exhortation, and, in
the last resort, prosecution, towards effectually "deterring" parents
from letting their children become verminous. Deterrent action of this
kind by the Local Education Authority has been accompanied by
corresponding action by the Local Health Authority, which has--again by
inspection, instruction, exhortation, and, in the last resort,
prosecution--induced many occupiers of tenement dwellings to prevent
these from remaining verminous or otherwise grossly below the current
standard of sanitation. This form of deterrence it is that lies at the
base of all our Public Health and Factory Legislation; a deterrence that
leads the owners and occupiers to bestir themselves to keep their
dwellings up to the current local standard of healthiness, the occupiers
of factories to maintain these in accordance with the requirements of
the law, and the operatives in unhealthy trades to observe the
precautions prescribed against disease. The same idea of a preventive
deterrence will inspire the Local Lunacy Authorities, once they are made
responsible for the feeble-minded, to insist on proper care and control
for those helpless girl mothers whom the Poor Law must perforce leave
free to propagate a feeble-minded race. In the same way the Minority
Commissioners believe that the new National Authority for Unemployment,
of which we may detect the beginnings in the National Labour Exchange,
will be able to "deter" men from becoming unemployed, not only by
actually preventing many unnecessary breaches of continuity in
employment (by equalising, year by year, the aggregate demand for
labour, regularising employment in the seasonal trades, and
"decasualising" the casual labourer in the ways elaborately described in
the Report), but also by putting the necessary pressure on the will of
those who are "born tired" or who have become "unemployable," either to
accept and retain the situations that will be definitely offered to
them, or else to submit themselves to disciplinary training, with the
reformatory Detention Colony in the background.
We venture to end this exposition of the philosophy of the Minority
Report of 1909 by a repetition of the words that we used, perhaps
prematurely, to describe those "Principles of 1907," to which, as we
have demonstrated, three-quarters of a century of experience has
empirically brought the Local Government Board itself. These principles,
we pointed out--in contrast to the _laisser faire_ of 1834--"embody the
doctrine of a mutual obligation between the individual and the
community. The universal maintenance of a definite minimum of civilised
life--seem to be in the interest of the community no less than in that
of the individual--becomes the joint responsibility of an indissoluble
partnership. The community recognises a duty in the curative treatment
of all who are in need of it--a duty most clearly seen in the medical
treatment of the sick and the education of the children. Once this
corporate responsibility is accepted, it becomes a question whether the
universal provision of any necessary common service is not the most
advantageous method of fulfilling such responsibility--a method which
has, at any rate, the advantage of leaving unimpaired the salutary
inequality between the thrifty and the unthrifty. It is, moreover, an
inevitable complement of this corporate responsibility, and of the
recognition of the indissoluble partnership, that new and enlarged
obligations, unknown in a state of _laisser faire_, are placed upon the
individual--such as the obligation of the parent to keep his children in
health, and to send them to school at the time and in the condition
insisted upon; the obligation of the young person to be well conducted
and to learn; the obligation of the adult not to infect his environment,
and to submit when required to hospital treatment. To enforce these
obligations--all new since 1834--upon the individual citizen, experience
shows that some other pressure on his volition is required than merely
leaving him alone. Hence the community, by the combination of the
principles of Curative Treatment, Universal Provision and Compulsion,
deliberately 'weights the alternatives,' in the guise of a series of
experiments upon volition. The individual retains as much freedom of
choice as--if not more than--he ever enjoyed before. But the father
finds it made more easy for him to get his children educated, and made
more disagreeable for him to neglect them. It is made more easy for the
mother to keep her infants in health, and more disagreeable for her to
let them die. The man suffering from disease finds it made more easy for
him to get cured without infecting his neighbours, and more
disagreeable for him not to take all the necessary precautions. The
labour exchanges and the farm colonies aim at making it more easy for
the wage-earner to get a situation; perhaps the reformatory
establishment, with powers of detention, is needed to make it more
disagreeable for him not to accept and retain that situation." It is, in
short, this doctrine of a mutual obligation--this fundamental principle
that social health is not a matter for the individual alone, nor for the
Government alone, but depends essentially on the joint responsibility of
the individual and the community for the maintenance of a definite
minimum of civilised life--that inspires every detail of the Minority
Report.
APPENDIX A
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.
The following table exhibits all the unions, incorporations, and
separate parishes which existed for Poor Law purposes on the 31st
December in the years 1847, 1871, and 1906 respectively. Where any such
union, etc., did not exist at the end of 1847 or ceased to exist before
the end of 1906 a note has been made in the margin showing, as nearly as
the materials readily available will permit,[862] the position of the
parishes comprised in the union, etc., with respect to the Poor Law
administration during the periods when the unions, etc., were
non-existent.
[862] There have, of course, been very numerous alterations of
union boundaries, by the transfer of parishes or parts of
parishes, which it has not been practicable to take into account.
The table shows the nature of the Poor Law (administrative) area at each
of the three selected dates. The letters =S.P.= indicate that at the
relevant date the Poor Law area was a separate parish administered by a
board of guardians under the Poor Law Acts Amendment Act 1834; =L.P.= that
the area was a separate parish administered under the provisions of a
Local Act; =G.L.= that the area was an incorporation formed under
Gilbert's Act (22 Geo. 3 c. 83); =L.I.= that the area was an incorporation
formed under a Local Act. The letter =U= indicates that at the relevant
date the Poor Law area was a union formed under the Act of 1834, though
before or after that date the area was of another nature, as indicated.
Where no letters in heavy type are inserted, the Poor Law area was
formed as a union under the Act of 1834, and no change in its nature had
taken place.
The table shows whether an Outdoor Relief Prohibitory, Outdoor Labour
Test, or Outdoor Relief Regulation Order was in force in each of the
unions, etc., at the selected dates. The letter P indicates that at the
relevant date a Prohibitory Order was in force; T, that an Outdoor
Labour Test Order was so in force; and R, that a Regulation Order was so
in force. In some cases it is difficult for various reasons to state
positively whether a Prohibitory, Test, or Regulation Order was in
force. Such cases have been marked with a "?"
In a few cases (distinguished in the table by the letter C) there were
in force, at the end of 1847, regulations in regard to a labour test for
outdoor paupers, which are set out in the Appendix at the end of the
table.
In the cases of Nottingham and St. Pancras the outdoor relief
regulations at the end of 1847 were in special terms. These regulations
are set out in the Appendix.
It is to be noted that at the end of 1847, about 220 separate parishes
(principally in the North of England, about 150 being in the West Riding
of Yorkshire) were still outside any incorporation or union, and were
managed under the provisions of 43 Eliz. c. 2. At 1871 these parishes
had nearly all been included in various unions, only the four Inns of
Court[863] and the Charterhouse remaining. In 1877 the Charterhouse was
added to Holborn Union.
[863] See the proviso to sec. 43 of the Divided Parishes, etc.,
Act 1876.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, S.W.
_10th May 1907._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unions, etc. | End of |End of | End of | Notes.
| 1847. | 1871.| 1906. |
------------------- +---------+-------+--------+------------------------
Aberayron |P. |P. |P. |
[now Aberaeron] | | | |
Abergavenny |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Bedwellty.
Aberystwith |P. |P. |P. |
[now Aberystwyth] | | | |
Abingdon |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Albans, St. |P. |P. |P.T. |
Alcester |P. |P. |P.T. |
Alderbury. See | | | |
Salisbury. | | | |
Alnwick |P. |P. |P. |
Alresford |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Alston-with- |P.(S.P.) |P.(S.P)|P.(S.P.)|
Garrigill | | | |
Alstonfield |Nil.(G.I)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Ashbourne and Leek
| | | | Unions.
Alton |P. |P. |P. | See Headley.
Altrincham. See | | | |
Bucklow. | | | |
Alverstoke |Nil.(G.I)|R.(S.P)|R.(S.P.)|Incorporation dissolved
and Gosport | | | | in 1868 and board of
| | | | guardians for separate
| | | | parish declared.
Amersham |P. |P. |P. |
Amesbury |P. |P. |P. |
Ampthill |P. |P. |P. |See Woburn.
Andover |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Anglesey |T. |R. |P. |Dissolved in 1869, and
| | | | included in East
| | | | Preston Union.
Asaph, St. |P. |P. |P. |
Ash |C.(G.I.) |... |... |Dissolved in 1869, and
| | | | parishes added to
| | | | Farnham, Guildford,
| | | | and Hartley Wintney
| | | | Unions.
Ashbourne |Nil. |P. |P. |See Alstonfield.
Ashby-de-la-Zouch |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Ashford, East |P. |P. |P. |
Ashford, West |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Ashton-under-Lyne |T. |R. |R. |
Aston |P. |P. |P.T. |
Atcham |P. |P. |P. |See Bedworth.
Auckland. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Axbridge |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Axminster |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Aylesbury |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Aylsham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Aysgarth |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1869 out of
| | | | parishes in Bainbridge
| | | | Incorporation with two
| | | | or three other
| | | | parishes.
| | | |
Bainbridge |Nil.(G.I)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869. See
| | | | See Aysgarth Union.
Bakewell |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bala |P. |P. |P. |
Banbury |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bangor and |C. |P. |P. |
Beaumaris | | | |
Barnet |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Barnsley |Nil. |R. |R. |Formed in 1849. In 1847
| | | | all parishes were
| | | | managed under 43 Eliz.
Barnstaple |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Barrow-in-Furness |... |... |R. |Formed in 1876.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Ulverston Union.
Barrow-upon-Soar |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Barton Regis |P.T. |P.T. |... |Named "Clifton Union"
| | | | till 1877. Parishes
| | | | added to Bristol,
| | | | Chipping Sodbury, and
| | | | Thornbury Poor Law
| | | | Unions.
Barton-upon-Irwell |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1849.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Chorlton Union.
Barwick in Elmet |Nil.(G.I)|... | |Parishes added to Great
| | | | Ouseburn, Leeds,
| | | | Pontefract,
| | | | Tadcaster, and
| | | | Wetherby Unions.
Basford |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Basingstoke |P. |P. |P. |
Bath |P. |P. |P. |
Battle |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Beaminster |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bedale |P. |P. |P. |
Bedford |P. |P. |P. |
Bedminster. See | | | |
Long Ashton. | | | |
Bedwellty. | |P. |P.T. |Formed in 1849.
| | | |Formerly part of
| | | | Abergavenny Union.
Bedworth |Nil. | | |Dissolved in 1851.
|(G.I.) | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Atherstone, Foleshill,
| | | | Hinckley, Lutterworth,
| | | | Market Bosworth, and
| | | | Rugby Unions.
Belford |P. |P. |P. |
Bellingham |P. |P. |P. |
Belper |P. |P. |P. |
Berkhampstead |P. |P. |P. |
Bermondsey |Nil. |R. |R. |Named "St. Olave's
(formerly |(U.) |(U.) |(S.P.) | Union" till 1904. Now
St. Olave's | | | | named Bermondsey
Union). | | | | Parish. See also St.
| | | | Mary, Rotherhithe, St.
| | | | Mary Magdalen,
| | | | Bermondsey.
Bermondsey, |Nil. | | |Included in St. Olave's
St. Mary | | | | Union (now called
Magdalen Parish |(S.P.) | | | Bermondsey Parish)
| | | | in 1869.
Berwick-on-Tweed |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bethnal Green |Nil. |R. |R. |
|(S.P.) |(S.P) |(S.P.) |
Beverley |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bichester |P. |P. |P. |
Bideford |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Biggleswade |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Billericay |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Billesdon |P. |P. |P. |
Bingham |P. |P. |P. |
Birkenhead | |R. |R. |Formed in 1861.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Wirrall Union.
Birmingham |Nil. |R. |R. |
|(L.P.) |(L.P) |(L.P.) |
Bishop Stortford |P. |P. |P. |
Blaby |P. |P. |P. |
Blackburn |Nil. |R. |R. |
Blandford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Blean |P. |P. |P. |
Blofield |P. |P. |P. |
Blything |P. |P. |P. |
Bodmin |C. |P. |P. |
Bolton |Nil. |R. |R. |
Bootle |C. |P. |P. |
Bosmere and |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Claydon | | | |
Boston |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Boughton, Great. | | | |
See Tarvin. | | | |
Bourn |P. |P. |P. |
Brackley |P. |P. |P. |
Bradfield |P. |P. |P. |
Bradford, Wilts |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bradford, Yorks |T. |R. |R. |Parishes in Bradford
|(U.) |(U.) |(S.P.) | Union united in 1897
| | | | with certain parishes
| | | | in North Bierley Union
| | | | to form the Township
| | | | of Bradford. For Poor
| | | | Law purposes the area
| | | | of this township is
| | | | named the Bradford
| | | | Poor Law Union
Braintree |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Witham.
Bramley |Nil. |Nil. |P.T. |Formed in 1862. In 1847
| | | | all the parishes were
| | | | managed under 43 Eliz.
Brampton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Brecknock |P. |P. |P. |
Brentford |C. |R. |R. |
Bridge |P. |P. |P. |
Bridgend and |P. |P. |P.T. |
Cowbridge | | | |
Bridgnorth |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bridgwater |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bridlington |C. |P. |P. |
Bridport |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Brighton |Nil(L.P.)|Nil(LP)|Nil(L.P)|
Brinton |Nil(G.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Walsingham Union.
Bristol |Nil(L.I.)|R.(LI) |R.(S.P.)|Formerly an
| | | | incorporation,
| | | | now a parish, and
| | | | _see_ Barton Regis.
Brixworth |P. |P. |P. |
Bromley |P. |P. |P.T. |
Bromsgrove |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Bromyard |P. |P. |P. |
Buckingham |P. |P. |P. |
Bucklow |P. |P.T. |P.T. |Named "Altrincham
| | | | Union" till 1895.
Builth |T. |R. |R. |
Buntingford |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Burnley |Nil. |R. |R. |
Burton-upon-Trent |P. |P. |P.T. |
Bury |Nil. |R. |R. |
Bury St. Edmunds |P. (L.I.)|P.(LI.)|P.(S.P.)|Incorporation till
| | | | parish under Poor Law
| | | | Amendment Act.
| | | |
Caistor |P. |P. |P. |See Grimsby.
Calne |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Camberwell |Nil(S.P.)|R(S.P) |R.(S.P.)|
Cambridge |P. (U.) |P.T.(U)|P.T.(SP)|Parishes united to form
| | | | one parish in 1900.
Camelford |C. |P.T. |P.T. |
Cannock |P. |P. |P.T. |Named "Penkridge Union"
| | | | till 1877.
Canterbury |Nil(L.I.)|P.(L.I.)|P.(S.P)|Incorporation till
| | | | 1881. Then a union,
| | | | now a parish.
Cardiff |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Pontypridd.
Cardigan |P. |P. |P. |
Carlisle |T. |R. |R. |
Carlton |Nil(G.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Holbeck, Hunslet,
| | | | Leeds, Wetherby, and
| | | | Wharfedale Unions.
Carmarthen |P. |P. |P. |
Carnarvon |Nil. |P. |P. |
Castle Ward |P. |P. |P. |
Catherington |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Caton |Nil(G.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Lancaster and
| | | | Lunesdale Unions.
Caxton and Arlington|P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Cerne |P. |P. |P. |
Chailey |P. |P. |... |Dissolved in 1898.
| | | | Parishes added to Lewes
| | | | Union.
Chapel-en-le-Frith |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chard |P. |P. |P. |
Chelmsford |P. |P. |P. |
Chelsea |Nil(S.P.)|R (S.P.)|R.(S.P)|
Cheltenham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chepstow |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chertsey |T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chester |Nil(L.I.)|P.T.(U.)|P.T.(U)|Incorporation dissolved
| | | | and union formed in
| | | | 1869. In 1871 many
| | | | parishes added from
| | | | Great Boughton (Tarvin)
| | | | and Hawarden Unions.
Chesterfield |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chester-le-Street |P. |P. |P. |
Chesterton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chichester |Nil(L.I.)|R.(L.I.)|R.(S.P)|Incorporation dissolved
| | | | and separate parish
| | | | declared in 1896.
Chippenham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chipping Norton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Chipping Sodbury |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Barton Regis.
Chorley |Nil. |R. |R. |
Chorlton |Nil. |R. |R. |See Barton-upon-Irwell.
Christchurch |P. |P. |P.T. |
Church Stretton. |P. |P. |P. |
Cirencester |P. |P. |P.T. |
Cleobury Mortimer |P. |P. |P. |
Clerkenwell. See | | | |
St.James, | | | |
Clerkenwell. | | | |
Clifton. See | | | |
Barton Regis. | | | |
Clitheroe |Nil. |R. |R. |
Clun |P. |P. |P. |
Clutton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Cockermouth |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Colchester |P. U. |P.T.(U.)|P.T(SP)|Parishes in union
| | | | united to form one
| | | | parish in 1897
Columb, St Major |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Congleton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Conway |T. |P. |P. |
Cookham. See | | | |
Maidenhead. | | | |
Corwen |P. |P. |P. |
Cosford |P. |P. |P. |
Coventry |Nil(L.I.)|R.(L.I.)|R.(U.) |Incorporation dissolved
| | | | and union formed in
| | | | 1874
Cranbrook |P. |P. |P. |
Crediton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Crickhowell |P. |P. |P.T. |
Cricklade and |P. |P. |P. |
Wootton Bassett. | | | |
Croydon |P. |P. |P.T. |
Cuckfield |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Darlington |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Dartford |P. |P. |P. |
Daventry |P. |P. |P. |
Depwade |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Guiltcross.
Derby |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Devizes |P. |P. |P. |
Devonport |Nil.(L.P)|R.(L.P.)|R.(S.P)|Named "Stoke Damerel
| | | | Parish" till 1898.
| | | | Declared separate
| | | | parish under board of
| | | | guardians in 1900.
Dewsbury |Nil. |R. |R. |
Docking |P. |P. |P. |
Dolgelly |T. |P. |P. |
Doncaster |P. |P. |P. |
Dorchester |P. |P. |P. |
Dore |P. |P. |P. |
Dorking |P. |P. |P. |
Dover |P. |P. |P. |
Downham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Drayton |P. |P. |P. |
Driffield |P. |P. |P. |
Droitwich |P. |P. |P. |
Droxford |P. |P. |P. |
Dudley |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Dulverton |T. |P. |P. |
Dunmow |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Durham |P. |P. |P.T. |
Dursley |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Easington |T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Easingwold |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Eastbourne |P. |P. |P. |See West Firle.
East Grinstead |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Easthampstead |P. |P. |P. |
East Preston |C.(G.I.) |R.(U.) |R.(U.) |Incorporation dissolved
| | | | and union formed in
| | | | 1869. The union
| | | | included nearly all
| | | | the parishes in the
| | | | dissolved
| | | | incorporation, and
| | | | also included the
| | | | dissolved Arundel
| | | | Incorporation. See
| | | | also Sutton.
East Retford |P. |P. |P. |
Eastry |P. |P. |P. |
East Stonehouse |P.(S.P.) |P.T.(SP)|P.T(SP)|
East Ward |P. |P. |P. |
Ecclesall Bierlow |C. |R. |R. |
Edmonton |Nil. |R. |R. |See Hampstead.
Elham |P. |P. |P. |
Ellesmere |P. |P. |P. |See Whitchurch (Salop).
Ely |P. |P.T. |P.T |
Epping |P. |P. |P. |
Epsom |P. |P. |P. |
Erpingham |P. |P. |P. |
Eton |P. |P. |P. |
Evesham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Exeter |Nil.(L.I)|R.(L.I.)|R.(SP.)|Union formed in 1877.
| | | | Now a parish.
| | | |
Faith, St. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Falmouth |C. |P.T. |P.T. |
Fareham |P. |P. |P. |
Faringdon |P. |P. |P.T. |
Farnborough |C. (G.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Hartley Wintney Union.
Farnham |Nil. |P. |P. |See Ash.
Faversham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Festiniog |P. |P. |P. |
Flegg, East |P.(L.I.) |P.(L.I.)|P.(LI.)|
and West | | | |
Foleshill |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Bedworth.
Forden |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1870. In 1847
| | | | a few of the parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.--the remainder
| | | | formed the Montgomery
| | | | and Pool Incorporation
Fordingbridge |P. |P. |P. |
Forehoe |P. (L.I.)|P.(L.I.)|P.(LI.)|
Freebridge Lynn |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Frome |P. |P. |P. |
Fulham |Nil. (U.)|R.(U.) |R.(S.P)|Union dissolved in 1899
| | | | and the separate
| | | | parishes of Fulham and
| | | | Hammersmith declared.
Fylde |Nil. |R. |R. |
| | | |
Gainsborough |P. |P. |P. |
Garstang |Nil. |R. |R. |
Gateshead |T. |R. |R. |
George, St., in the |Nil.(S.P)|R.(S.P.)|R. (SP)|
East | | | |
George, St., Hanover|Nil.(L.P)|... |... |Included in St.
Square | | | | George's Union in
| | | | 1870.
George, St. (Union) |... |Nil. |R. |Formed in 1870 of
| | | | parishes formerly
| | | | under Local Acts (St.
| | | | Margaret, Westminster,
| | | | and St. George,
| | | | Hanover Square).
George, St., |Nil.(S.P)|... |... |Added to St. Saviour's
the Martyr | | | | Union (now called
| | | | Southwark Union) in
| | | | 1869.
Germans, St. |P. |P. |P. |
Giles, St., | | | |
Camberwell. | | | |
See Camberwell. | | | |
Giles, St., in |Nil.(L.P)|R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Board of guardians
the Fields, | | | | declared in 1868.
and St. George, | | | |
Bloomsbury (United| | | |
Parishes) | | | |
Glanford Brigg |P. |P. |P. |
Glendale |P. |P. |P. |
Glossop |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Gloucester |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Godstone |P. |P. |P. |
Goole |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Gower |... |P. |P.T. |Formed in 1857.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Swansea Union.
Grantham |P. |P. |P. |See Belvoir and
| | | | Grantham
| | | | Out-relief Unions.
Gravesend and |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Milton | | | |
Great Boughton. | | | |
See Tarvin. | | | |
Great Preston. See | | | |
Preston, Great. | | | |
Great Yarmouth. | | | |
See Yarmouth. | | | |
Greenwich |Nil. |R. |R. |See Woolwich.
Grimsby |... |... |P.T. |Formed in 1890 Formerly
| | | | part of Caistor Union.
Guildford |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Ash.
Guiltcross. |P. |P.T. |... |Dissolved in 1902.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Depwade, Thetford, and
| | | | Wayland Unions.
Guisborough |P. |P. |P.T. |See Middlesbrough.
| | | |
Hackney |Nil. |R. |R. |
Hailsham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See West Firle.
Halifax |T. |R. |R. |
Halstead |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Haltwhistle |P. |P. |P. |
Hambledon |P.T |P.T. |P.T. |
Hammersmith |... |... |R.(S.P)|Declared a separate
| | | | parish in 1899.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Fulham Union.
Hampstead |... |R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Declared a separate
| | | | parish in 1848.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Edmonton Union.
Hardingstone |P. |P. |P. |
Hartismere |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Hartlepool |... |P. |P.T. |Formed in 1859 Formerly
| | | | part of Stockton Union.
Hartley Wintney |P. |P. |P. |See Ash and Farnborough
Haslingden |Nil. |R. |R. |
Hastings |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Hatfield |P. |P. |P. |
Havant |P. |P. |P. |
Haverfordwest |P. |P. |P. |
Hawarden |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1853 of
| | | | parishes, formerly part
| | | | of Great Boughton (now
| | | | called Tarvin) Union.
| | | | In 1871 largely
| | | | reconstructed, many
| | | | parishes being added
| | | | to Chester Union, and
| | | | others added from
| | | | Wrexham Union.
Hay |P. |P. |P. |
Hayfield |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Headington |P. |P. |P. |
Headley |C.(G.I.) | | |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Alton and Petersfield
| | | | Unions.
Helmsley |Nil. |P. |P. |Named "Helmsley
| | | | Blackmoor Union" till
| | | | 1887. See Kirkby
| | | | Moorside.
Helston |T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Hemel Hempstead |P. |P. |P.T. |
Hemsworth | |R. |R. |Formed in 1850. In 1847
| | | | nearly all the parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.
Hendon |C. |R. |R. |See Willesden.
Henley |P. |P. |P. |
Henstead |P. |P. |P. |
Hereford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Hertford |P. |P. |P. |
Hexham |P. |P. |P.T. |
Highworth and | | | |
Swindon. | | | |
See Swindon | | | |
and Highworth. | | | |
Hinckley |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Bedworth.
Hitchin |P. |P. |P.T. |
Holbeach |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Holbeck |(Township|R.(U.) |R.(U.) |Union formed in 1869.
|under 43 | | | In 1847 the Township of
|Eliz. | | | Holbeck was managed
|c. 2.) | | | under 43 Eliz., the
| | | | other Townships being
| | | | included in the
| | | | Carlton Incorporation.
Holborn |Nil. |R. |R. |See James, St.,
| | | | Clerkenwell, and Luke,
| | | | St., Middlesex.
Hollingbourne |P. |P. |P. |
Holsworthy |C. |P.T. |P. |
Holyhead | |R. |P. |Formed in 1852.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Anglesey Union.
Holywell |P. |P. |P. |
Honiton |P. |P. |P. |
Hoo |P. |P. |P. |
Horncastle |P. |P. |P. |
Horsham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Houghton-le-Spring |P. |P. |P.T. |
Howden |P. |P. |P. |
Hoxne |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Huddersfield |Nil. |R. |R. |
Hungerford and |P. |P. |P. |Named "Hungerford
Ramsbury | | | | Union" till 1896.
Hunslet |(Township|R.(U.) |R.(U.) |In 1847 the Township of
|under 43 | | | Hunslet was managed
|Eliz. | | | under 43 Eliz. Some
|c. 2.) | | | other parishes in the
| | | | union, which was formed
| | | | in 1869, were formerly
| | | | in Carlton and Great
| | | | Preston Incorporations.
Huntingdon |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Hursley |P. |P. |P. |
| | | |
Ipswich |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Islington |Nil.(L.P)|R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Board of guardians
| | | | declared in 1867.
Ives, St. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
James, St., |Nil.(L.P)|... |... |Added to Holborn
Clerkenwell | | | | Union in 1869.
James, St., |Nil(L.P.)|... |... |Included in Westminster
Westminster | | | | Union in 1868.
John, St., Hampstead| | | |
See Hampstead | | | |
| | | |
Keighley |T. |R. |R. |
Kendal |C. |R. |R. |
Kensington |Nil(S.P.)|R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|
Kettering |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Keynsham |P. |P. |P. |See Keynsham and
| | | | Warmley Out-Relief
| | | | Unions.
Kidderminster |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Kingsbridge |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Kingsclere |P. |P. |P. |
Kings Lynn |C. |B. |P. |
Kings Norton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Kingston-upon-Hull |Nil.(L.I)|R.(L.I.)|R.(L.P)|Incorporation consisted
| | | | in 1847 and 1871 of
| | | | two united parishes.
| | | | In 1906 there was only
| | | | one parish, but it was
| | | | styled an incorporation
Kingston-on-Thames |C. |P.T. |P.T. |
Kington |P. |P. |P. |See Presteigne.
Kirkby Moorside |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1848.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Helmsley Blackmoor
| | | | (Helmsley) Union.
Knaresborough |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1854. In 1847
| | | | nearly all the parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.
Knighton |P. |P. |P. |See Presteigne.
| | | |
Lambeth |Nil.(S.P)|R.(S.P) |R.(S.P)|Named "St. Mary,
| | | | Lambeth" till 1901.
Lampeter |T. |R. |R. |
Lancaster |Nil. |R. |R. |See Caton.
Lanchester |P. |P. |P.T. |
Langport |P. |P. |P. |
Launceston |P. |P. |P. |
Ledbury |P. |P. |P. |
Leeds |Nil.(S.P)|R.(U.) |R.(U.) |The Leeds Union was
| | | | formed in 1869 and
| | | | included the Township
| | | | of Leeds, and also
| | | | parishes from Barwick
| | | | in Elmet, Carlton, and
| | | | Great Preston
| | | | Incorporations.
Leek |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Alstonfield.
Leicester |T. (U.) |R.(U.) |R.(S.P)|Parishes in union
| | | | united to form one
| | | | parish in 1896.
Leigh |Nil. |R. |R. |
Leighton Buzzard |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Woburn.
Leominster |P. |P. |P. |
Leonard, St., |Nil. |R. |R. |Board of guardians
Shoreditch |(L.P.) |(S.P.) |(S.P.) | constituted in [1858
| | | | and] 1868.
Lewes |P. |P. |P. |See Chailey and West
| | | | Firle.
Lewisham. |C. |R. |R. |See Woolwich.
Lexden and |P. |P. |P. |See Witham.
Winstree | | | |
Leyburn |P. |P. |P. |
Lichfield |P. |P. |P. |
Lincoln |P. |P. |P.T. |
Linton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Liskeard |P. |P. |P. |
Liverpool |Nil. |R. |R. |
(L.P.) |(L.P.) |(L.P.) | |
Llandilo Fawr |P. |P. |P. |
Llandovery |P. |P. |P. |
Llanelly |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Llanfyllin |P. |P. |P. |
Llanrwst |T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Loddon and |P. |P. |P. |
Clavering | | | |
London, City of |Nil. |R. |R. |See London, East, and
| | | | London, West.
London, East |Nil. | | |Dissolved in 1869--
| | | | parishes added to City
| | | | of London Union.
London, West |Nil. | | |Dissolved in 1869--
| | | | parishes added to City
| | | | of London Union.
Long Ashton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |Named "Bedminster
| | | | Union" till 1899.
Longtown |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Loughborough |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Louth |P. |P. |P. |
Ludlow |P. |P. |P. |
Luke, St., Chelsea. | | | |
See Chelsea. | | | |
Luke, St., Middlesex|Nil. | | |Added to Holborn Union
|(L.P.) | | | in 1869.
Lunesdale |R. |R. | |Formed in 1869. In 1847
| | | | about half of the
| | | | parishes were managed
| | | | under 43 Eliz.; most
| | | | of the remainder were
| | | | in Caton Incorporation.
Luton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Lutterworth |P. |P. |P. |See Bedworth.
Lymington |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Macclesfield |C. |P.T. |P.T. |
Machynlleth |T. |P. |P. |
Madeley |P. |P. |P.T. |
Maidenhead |P. |P. |P.T. |Named "Cookham Union"
| | | | till 1896.
Maidstone |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Maldon |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Witham.
Malling |P. |P. |P. |
Malmesbury |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Malton |P. |P. |P. |See Malton and Norton
| | | | Out-Relief Unions.
Manchester |Nil.(U.) |R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|The Manchester Union was
| | | | dissolved in 1850; the
| | | | Township of Manchester
| | | | township; the other
| | | | parishes in the union
| | | | were included in the
| | | | Prestwich Union.
Mansfield |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Margaret, St., |Nil.(L.P)|... |... |Included in St. George's
and St.John, | | | | Union in 1870.
Westminster. | | | |
Market Bosworth |P. |P. |P. |See Bedworth.
Market Drayton. See | | | |
Drayton. | | | |
Market Harborough |P. |P. |P. |
Marlborough |P. |P. |P. |
Martin, St., in |Nil.(S.P)|... |... |Added to Strand Union
the Fields. | | | | in 1868.
Martley |P. |P. |P. |
Mary, St., and | | | |
St. Andrew, | | | |
Whittlesey. | | | |
See Whittlesey. | | | |
Mary, St., Islington| | | |
See Islington. | | | |
Mary, St., Lambeth. | | | |
See Lambeth. | | | |
Mary, St., Newington|Nil.(L.P)|... |... |Added to St. Saviour's
| | | | Union (now Southwark
| | | | Union) in 1869.
Mary, St., |Nil.(L.P)|... |... |Added to St. Olave's
Rotherhithe | | | | Union (now Bermondsey
| | | | Parish) in 1869.
Marylebone, St. |Nil.(L.P)|R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Board of guardians
| | | |declared in 1867.
Mary Magdalen, St., | | | |
Bermondsey. See | | | |
Bermondsey, St. Mary| | | |
Magdalen. | | | |
Medway |P. |P. |P. |
Melksham. | | | |
See Trowbridge | | | |
and Melksham. | | | |
Melton Mowbray |P. |P. |P. |
Mere |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Meriden |P. |P. |P. |
Merthyr Tydfil |T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Pontypridd.
Middlesbrough |... |... |R. |Formed in 1875.
| | | | Formerly parts of
| | | | Guisborough, Stockton,
| | | | and Stokesley Unions.
Midhurst |P. |P. |P. |See Sutton.
Mildenhall |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Mile End Old Town |... |R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Declared separate in
| | | | 1857 Formerly part of
| | | | Stepney Union.
Milton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Mitford and |P. |P. |P. |
Launditch | | | |
Monmouth |P. |P. |P.T. |
Montgomery and Pool |Nil.(L.I)|... |... |Dissolved in 1870.
| | | | Parishes included in
| | | | Forden Union.
Morpeth. |P. |P. |P. |
Mutford and |Nil.(L.I)|R.(L.I) |R.(U.) |Incorporation dissolved
Lothingland. | | | |and union formed in 1893
| | | | See Yarmouth, Great.
| | | |
Nantwich. |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See also Whitchurch
| | | | Salop.
Narberth. |P. |P. |P. |
Neath. |P. |P. |P.T. |See Pontardawe.
Neot's, St. |P. |P. |P. |
Newark. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newbury. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newcastle-in-Emlyn. |P. |P. |P. |
Newcastle-under-Lyme|P. |P. |P. |
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.|T. |R. |R. |
Newent. |P. |P. |P. |
New Forest. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newington, St. Mary.| | | |
See St. Mary, | | | |
Newington. | | | |
New Winchester. See | | | |
Winchester. | | | |
Newhaven. |P. |P. |P. |
Newmarket. |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newport (Monmouth) |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newport (Salop). |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newport Pagnell. |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Newton Abbot. |P. |P. |P. |
Newtown and |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Llanidloes. | | | |
Northallerton. |T. |P. |P. |
Northampton. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
North Aylesford. See| | | |
Strood. | | | |
North Bierley. |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1848. In 1847
| | | | formed part of Bradford
| | | | (Yorks) Union. See
| | | | Bradford for changes
| | | | in 1987.
Northleach. |P. |P. |P. |
Northwich. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
North Witchford. |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Norwich. |Nil.(L.I)|R.(L.I.)|R.(L.P)|In 1890 the parishes in
| | | | the incorporation were
| | | | united to form one
| | | | parish.
Nottingham. |Special |R.(U.) |R.(S.P)|The parishes in the
| (U.) | | | union were united to
| | | | form one parish in 1899
| | | | See also Radford.
Nuneaton. |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
| | | |
Oakham. |P. |P. |P. |
Okehampton. |P. |P. |P. |
Olave, St. See | | | |
Bermondsey. | | | |
Oldham. |Nil. |R. |R. |
Ongar. |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Ormskirk |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Orsett. |P. |P. |P.T. |
Oswestry. |Nil.(L.I)|P.(L.I.)|PT.(LI)|
Oundle. |P. |P. |P. |
Ouseburn, Great |Nil.(G.I)|P.(U.) |P.(U.) |Union formed in 1854.
| | | | Some of the parishes
| | | | included in the union
| | | | were in 1847 managed
| | | | under 43 Eliz.; and
| | | | see Barwick in Elmet.
Oxford |Nil.(L.I)|P.T.(LI)|P.T(LI)|
| | | |
Paddington |Nil(S.P.)|R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|
Pancras, St. |Special |R.(S.P.)|R.(S.P)|Board of guardians
|(L.P.) | | | declared in 1867.
Pateley Bridge |Nil. |R. |R. |
Patrington |P. |P. |P. |
Pembroke |P. |P. |P. |
| | | |
Penistone |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1849. In 1847
| | | | certain of the parishes
| | | | were other parishes
| | | | formed part of Wortley
| | | | Union.
Penkridge. | | | |
See Cannock. | | | |
Penrith. |P. |P. |P. |
Penzance. |P. |P. |P. |
Pershore. |P. |P. |P. |
Peterborough |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Petersfield |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Headley.
Petworth |P. |P. |P. |See Sutton.
Pewsey |P. |P. |P. |
Pickering |P. |P. |P.T. |
Plomesgate |P. |P. |P. |
Plymouth |Nil.(L.I)|R.(L.I.)|R (L.P)|The parishes in the
| | | | incorporation were
| | | | united in 1898 to form
| | | | one parish.
Plympton, St. Mary |P. |P. |P. |
Pocklington |T. |P. |P. |
Pontardawe |... |... |R. |Formed in 1875. Formerly
| | | | part of Neath and
| | | | Swansea Unions.
Pontefract |... |Nil. |P.T. |Formed in 1862. In 1847
| | | |about four-fifths of the
| | | | parishes were managed
| | | | under 43 Eliz., others
| | | | formed part of Barwick
| | | | in Elmet and Great
| | | | Preston Incorporations.
Pontypool |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Pontypridd |... |P.T. |P.T. |Formed in 1862. Formerly
| | | | part of Cardiff and
| | | | Merthyr Tydfil Unions.
Poole |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Poplar |Nil. |R. |R. |The name of this Poor
| | | | Law Union is now
| | | | (1907) "Parish of
| | | | Poplar Borough."
Portsea Island. | | | |
See Portsmouth. | | | |
Portsmouth |P. (U.) |P.T.(U.)|P.T(SP)|Named "Portsea Island
| | | | Union" till 1900, when
| | | | the united to form one
| | | | parish.
Potterspury |P. |P. |P. |
Prescot |Nil. |R. |R. |
Presteigne |T. |R. |... |Dissolved in 1877.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Kington and Knighton
| | | | Unions.
Preston |Nil. |R. |R. |
Preston, East. See | | | |
East Preston. | | | |
Preston, Great |Nil.(G.I)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869. All
| | | | but four of the
| | | | parishes were added to
| | | |Pontefract and Tadcaster
| | | | of the remainder were
| | | | added to Hunslet, Leeds
| | | | Selby, and Wakefield
| | | | Unions.
Prestwich |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1850. Nearly
| | | | all the parishes were
| | | | formerly part of
| | | | Manchester Union.
Pwllheli |P. |P. |P. |
| | | |
Radford |Nil. |R. |... |Dissolved in 1880.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Nottingham Union
| | | | (now Parish).
Reading |P.(U.) |P.(U.) |P.T(SP)|Parishes united to form
| | | | one parish in 1905.
Redruth |P. |P. |P.T. |
Reeth |P. |P. |P. |
Reigate |P. |P. |P. |
Rhayader |T. |R. |P. |
Richmond (Surrey) |C. |R. |R. |
Richmond (Yorks) |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Ringwood |P. |P. |P. |
Ripon |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1852. In 1847
| | | | nearly all the parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.
Risbridge |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Rochdale |Nil. |R. |R. |
Rochford |P. |P. |P. |
Romford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Romney Marsh |P. |P. |P. |
Romsey |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Ross |P. |P. |P. |
Rothbury |P. |P. |P. |
Rotherham |C. |R. |R. |
Rotherhithe. See | | | |
Mary, St., | | | |
Rotherhithe. | | | |
Royston |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Rugby |P. |P. |P.T. |See Bedworth.
Runcorn |T. |P. |P. |
Ruthin |P. |P. |P. |
Rye |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Saddleworth |Nil(G.I.)|R.(S.P.)|R.(U.) |Named "Saddleworth with
| | | | Quick Incorporation"
| | | | till 1853. In 1853
| | | | board of guardians
| | | | declared. In 1894 a
| | | | union was formed.
Saddleworth with | | | |
Quick. See | | | |
Saddleworth. | | | |
Saffron Walden |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Salford |Nil. |R. |R. |
Salisbury |Nil.(L.I)|... |... |The incorporation was
(Incorporation). | | | | in 1869 added to
| | | | Alderbury (now named
| | | | Salisbury) Union.
Salisbury (Union) |P. |P.T. |P.T. |Named "Alderbury Union"
| | | | till 1895. See
| | | | Salisbury
| | | | Incorporation.
Samford |P.(L.I.) |P.(U.) |P.(U.) |Incorporation
| | | | dissolved and union
| | | | formed in 1849.
Saviour's, St. | | | |
See Southwark. | | | |
Scarborough |P. |P. |P. |
Sculcoates |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Sedbergh |Nil. |P. |P. |
Sedgefield |P. |P. |P. |
Seisdon |P. |P. |P. |
Selby |P. |P. |P. |See Preston, Great.
Settle |T. |R. |R. |
Sevenoaks |P. |P. |P. |
Shaftesbury |P. |P. |P. |
Shardlow |P. |P. |P. |
Sheffield |C. |R. |R. |
Sheppey |P. |P. |P. |
Shepton Mallet |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Sherborne |P. |P. |P. |
Shiffnal |P. |P. |P. |
Shipston-on-Stour |P. |P. |P. |
Shoreditch. See | | | |
Leonard, St., | | | |
Shoreditch | | | |
Shrewsbury |Nil(L.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1871.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Atcham Union.
Skipton |T. |R. |R. |
Skirlaugh |P. |P. |P. |
Sleaford |P. |P. |P. |
Smallburgh |... |P. |P. |Formed in 1869. One
| | | | parish was formerly
| | | | Erpingham Union, in
| | | | the other parishes
| | | | formed the Tunstead
| | | | and Happing
| | | | Incorporation.
Solihull |P. |P. |P. |
Southam |P. |P. |P.T. |
Southampton |Nil.(L.I)|R. (L.I)|R.(L.I)|
South Molton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
South Shields |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
South Stoneham |P. |P. |P. |
Southwark |Nil. |R. |R. |Named St. Saviour's
| | | | Union till 1901. See
| | | | St. Mary, Newington.
Southwell |P. |P. |P. |
Spalding |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Spilsby |P. |P. |P. |
Stafford |P. |P. |P.T. |
Staines |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Stamford |P. |P. |P. |
Stepney |Nil. |R. |R. |See Mile End Old Town.
Steyning |P. |P. |P. |
Stockbridge |P. |P. |P. |
Stockport |Nil. |R. |R. |
Stockton |T. |P.T. |P.T. |See Hartlepool and
| | | | Middlesbrough.
Stoke Damerel. See | | | |
Devonport. | | | |
Stokesley |C. |P. |P. |See Middlesbrough.
Stoke-upon-Trent |P.T.(S.P)|P.T.(SP)|P.T.(U)| Union formed in 1894.
Stone |P. |P. |P. |
Stourbridge |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Stow |P. |P. |P. |
Stow-on-the-Wold |P. |P. |P. |
Strand |Nil. |R. |R. |See Martin, St., in the
| | | | Fields and
| | | | Westminster.
Stratford-on-Avon |P. |P. |P. |
Stratton |C. |P.T. |P. |
Strood |P. |P.T. |P.T. |Named "North Aylesford
| | | | Union" till 1884.
Stroud |P. |P. |P. |
Sturminster |P. |P. |P. |
Sudbury |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Sunderland |T. |R. |R. |
Sutton |C. (G.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Most of the parishes
| | | | were added to Petworth
| | | | Union, the remainder
| | | | were added to East
| | | | Preston, Midhurst,
| | | | Thakeham and
| | | | Westhampnett Unions.
Swaffham |P. |P. |P. |
Swansea |P. |P. |P.T. |See Gower and
| | | | Pontardawe.
Swindon and |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |Named "Highworth and
Highworth | | | | Swindon" till 1899.
Tadcaster |... |Nil. |P. |Formed in 1862. In 1847
| | | | several were managed
| | | | under 43 Eliz. Others
| | | | were in Barwick-in
| | | | -Elmet and Great
| | | | Preston Incorporations
Tamworth |P. |P. |P. |
Tarvin |T. |P. |P. |Named "Great Boughton
| | | | Union" till 1871. See
| | | | also Chester,
| | | | Hawarden, and
| | | | Whitchurch (Salop).
Taunton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Tavistock |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Teesdale |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Tenbury |P. |P. |P. |
Tendring |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Tenterden |P. |P. |P. |
Tetbury |P. |P. |P.T. |
Tewkesbury |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Thakeham |P. |P. |P. |See Sutton.
Thame |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Thanet, Isle of |P. |P. |P. |
Thetford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Guiltcross.
Thingoe |P. |P. |P. |
Thirsk |P. |P. |P. |
Thomas, St. |P. |P. |P. |
Thornbury |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Barton Regis.
Thorne |P. |P. |P. |
Thrapston |P. |P. |P.T. |
Ticehurst |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Tisbury |P. |P. |P. |
Tiverton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Todmorden |Nil. |R. |R. |
Tonbridge |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Torrington |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Totnes |P. |P. |P. |
Towcester |P. |P. |P. |
Toxteth Park |... |R. |R. |Declared a separate
| | | | Township in 1857.
| | | | Formerly part of West
| | | | Derby Union.
Tregaron |T. |R. |R. |
Trowbridge and |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |Named Melksham Union
Melksham. | | | | till 1898.
Truro |C. |P. |P. |
Tunstead and Happing|P. (L.I.)|... |... |Dissolved in 1869.
| | | | Parishes included in
| | | | Smallburgh Union.
Tynemouth |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Uckfield |P. |P. |P. |
Ulverston |C. |R. |R. |See Barrow-in-Furness.
Uppingham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Upton-on-Severn |P. |P. |P. |
Uttoxeter |P. |P. |P. |
Uxbridge |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Wakefield |Nil. |R. |R. |See Preston, Great.
Wallingford |P. |P. |P. |
Walsall |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Walsingham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Brinton.
Wandsworth |Nil. |R. |R. |Named "Wandsworth and
| | | |Clapham Union" till 1904
Wangford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wantage |P. |P. |P. |
Ware |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wareham and Purbeck |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Warminster |P. |P. |P. |
Warrington |T. |R. |R. |
Warwick |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Watford |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wayland |P. |P. |P. |See Guiltcross.
Weardale |P. |P. |P. |
Wellingborough |P. |P. |P. |
Wellington (Salop) |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wellington (Som.) |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wells |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Welwyn |P. |P. |P. |
Wem |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See also Whitchurch
| | | | (Salop)
Weobley |P. |P. |P. |
Westbourne |P. |P. |P. |
West Bromwich |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Westbury-on-Severn |P. |P. |P. |
Westbury and |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Whorwellsdown | | | |
West Derby |Nil. |R. |R. |See Toxteth Park.
West Firle |P. |P. |... |Dissolved in 1898.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Eastbourne, Hailsham,
| | | | and Lewes Union.
| | | |
West Ham |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Westhampnett |P. |P. |P. |See Sutton.
Westminster |... |R. |R. |Union formed in 1868.
| | | | Part was formerly under
| | | | Local Act (James, St.,
| | | | Westminster),
| | | | remainder was formerly
| | | | in Strand Union.
West Ward |P. |P. |P. |
Wetherby |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1861. In 1847
| | | | about half the Parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.--See also Barwick
| | | | -in-Elmet and Carlton.
Weymouth |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wharfedale |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1861. In 1847
| | | | about half the Parishes
| | | | were managed under 43
| | | | Eliz.--See also
| | | | Carlton.
Wheatenhurst |P. |P. |P. |
Whitby |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Whitchurch (Hants) |P. |P. |P. |
Whitchurch (Salop) |Nil.(L.P)|Nil.(U.)|P.(U.) |Union formed in 1853.
| | | | Comprising the
| | | | Whitchurch
| | | | Incorporation and
| | | | Parishes formerly in
| | | | Ellesmere, Great
| | | | Boughton (Tarvin),
| | | | Nantwich, Wem and
| | | | Wrexham Unions.
Whitechapel |Nil. |R. |R. |
Whitehaven |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Whittlesey |P. (S.P.)|P.(S.P.)|P.(U.) |Named "Whittlesey
| | | | Parish" or "United
| | | | Parishes of St. Mary
| | | | and St. Andrew,
| | | | Whittlesey," till 1894.
| | | | Union formed in 1894.
Wigan |Nil. |R. |R. |
Wight, Isle of |Nil.(L.I)|R.(U.) |P.(U.) |Incorporation dissolved
| | | | and Union formed in
| | | | 1865.
Wigton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Willesden |... |... |R.(S.P)|Separate Parish
| | | |declared in 1896.
| | | |Formerly part of
| | | |Hendon Union.
Williton |P. |P. |P. |
Wilton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wimborne and |P. |P. |P. |
Cranborne | | | |
Wincanton |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Winchcomb |P. |P. |P. |
Winchester |P. |P. |P. |Named New Winchester
| | | | Union till 1901.
Windsor |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Winslow |P. |P. |P. |
Wirrall |P. |P.T. |P.T. |See Birkenhead.
Wisbeach |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Witham |P. |P. |... |Dissolved in 1880.
| | | | Parishes added by
| | | | Braintree, Lexden and
| | | | Winstree and Maldon
| | | | Unions.
Witney |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Woburn |P. |P.T. |... |Dissolved in 1899.
| | | | Parishes added to
| | | | Ampthill and
| | | | Leighton Buzzard
| | | | Unions.
Wokingham |P.T. |P.T. |P.T. |
Wolstanton and |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Burslem | | | |
Wolverhampton |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Woodstock |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Woolwich |... |R. |R. |Formed in 1868.
| | | | Formerly part of
| | | | Greenwich and Lewisham
| | | | Unions.
Worcester |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
Worksop |P. |P. |P. |
Wortley |C. |R. |R. |See Penistone.
Wrexham |P. |P. |P. |See Hawarden and
| | | | Whitchurch (Salop).
| | | |
Wycombe |P. |P.T. |P.T. |
| | | |
Yarmouth, Great |P.T.(S.P)|P.T.(SP)|P.T.(U)|"Parish" till 1891
| | | | Union formed in 1891,
| | | | of the parish and of a
| | | | parish which was
| | | | formerly part of the
| | | | Mutford and
| | | | Lothingland
| | | | Incorporation.
Yeovil |P. |P. |P. |
York |C. |P. |P. |See Bishopthorpe,
| | | | Escrick, Flaxton,
| | | | and York Out-Relief
| | | | Unions.
| | | |
OUT-RELIEF UNIONS | | | |
| | | |
Belvoir |... |... |P. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of Grantham
| | | | Union].
Bishopthorpe |... |... |P.T. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of York Union].
Escrick |... |... |P.T. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of York Union].
Flaxton |... |... |P.T. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of York Union].
Grantham |... |... |P. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of Grantham
| | | | Union].
Keynsham |... |... |P. |Formed in 1895
| | | | [Part of Keynsham
| | | | Union].
Malton | ... | ... | P. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of Malton
| | | | Union].
Norton | ... | ... | P. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of Malton
| | | | Union].
Warmley | ... | ... | P. |Formed in 1895
| | | | [Part of Keynsham
| | | | Union].
York | ... | ... | P.T. |Formed in 1894
| | | | [Part of York Union].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Unions and Incorporations marked "C" in the table, a
regulation to the following effect was in force at the end of 1847:--
"If any able-bodied male pauper shall apply to be set to work by
the parish, one-half at least of the relief which may be afforded
to him or to his family shall be in kind."
The following special regulations were in force at the end of 1847:--
_Nottingham._--The Out-relief Rules contained in the early Regulations
Order were in special terms. A subsequent Order suspended
certain of those rules, and permitted outdoor relief to able-bodied
paupers, to "be given, as far as possible, in return for
piecework."
_St. Pancras._--The rules directed that "in the case of any able-bodied
persons the guardians may, until accommodation can be obtained
for the reception of such persons in the workhouse, give outdoor
relief, one-half of which, at least, shall be in kind; but such
relief shall only be given in return for labour at task work."
APPENDIX B[864]
EXTRACT FROM THE MINORITY REPORT FOR SCOTLAND, GIVING THE REASONS IN
FAVOUR OF THE COMPLETE SUPERSESSION OF THE POOR LAW
[864] The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, etc.,
relating to Scotland is issued as Cd. 4922, price 2/8. _The
Minority Report for Scotland_ is published separately by the
Scottish National Committee to Promote the Break-up of the Poor
Law (180 Hope Street, Glasgow), price 6d. net.
We realise that the foregoing recommendations amount to the complete
supersession of the Poor Law, and, indeed, to its abolition. In its
stead, we propose merely an adequate enlargement of the work already
undertaken by the various existing public authorities for the prevention
of destitution--for the prevention of the destitution due to neglected
childhood by the Local Education Authority; for the prevention of the
destitution due to preventable sickness, neglected infancy, or
uncared-for infirmity by the Local Health Authority; for the prevention
of the destitution due to mental defectiveness by the Local Lunacy
Authority; for the prevention of the destitution of Old Age by the Local
Pension Authority; and for the prevention of the destitution due to
unemployment by the new National Authority of which the beginning is
seen in the Labour Exchanges Act of 1909. We recommend, in fact, that
the community should cease to maintain a special organ for the mere
relief of destitution, however caused, and should make such relief as
must be given merely incidental to the deliberate prevention of
destitution, to which it has, by the creation of public authorities
dealing with the several causes of destitution, already set its hand. We
now proceed to summarise the main reasons for so radical a change of
attitude towards the problem of poverty, and incidentally to answer the
more important objections that have been made to it.
_The Present Overlap and Duplication of Services in Respect of all
Sections of the Destitute_
The first reason for dispensing with any special Authority for the
relief of destitution as such is a practical one. The work of the Poor
Law Authority has to-day been largely superseded, in every branch of its
duties, by the activities of the newer forms of Local Government. We
have already described, in our proposal for the institution of a Common
Register of Public Assistance, and the appointment of a Registrar, the
beginnings in Scotland of the same costly overlap of services and
duplication of work which have, in England, already reached extravagant
proportions. Thus, whereas in 1845, and for some years afterwards, all
the public assistance afforded to the sick poor was included in the Poor
Law administration, there has gradually been built up, out of the rates,
a second medical service, the Public Health department of the County or
Burgh. This Public Health Department--in the Highlands, in the Hebrides,
and in some of the rural districts still only rudimentary--has, in the
large towns, already its own series of hospitals in which the sick poor
are maintained as well as treated, entirely free of charge, yet without
being paupers. To the long list of diseases already treated in these
municipal hospitals, there has now been added phthisis, an illness which
accounts for a large proportion of the sick at present dealt with by the
Poor Law Authorities. With regard to the children, we see, more or less
competing with the Poor Law for their care, on the one hand the
Industrial Schools so largely maintained out of the rates and taxes, and
on the other the School Boards with the new powers conferred on them by
the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908 in connection with the provision of
meals and medical inspection. With regard to the aged, we have since
1908 in every County and Burgh a Local Pension Committee awarding
domiciliary pensions to no fewer than 70,000 persons over 70, or more
than treble the number of aged persons maintained by the Parish Councils
as Poor Law Authorities, many, indeed, having been saved from the pauper
roll. The removal of the pauper disqualification for a national pension,
which has been definitely announced as a subject for legislation in
1910, will make the overlap still more remarkable. With regard to all
the persons certifiable as of unsound mind we have the District Boards
of Lunacy providing asylums for some, whilst the Parish Councils still
deal with others in the Poorhouses, as they do with the uncertified
imbeciles, epileptics, and feeble-minded. Finally, with regard to the
able-bodied men in distress, for whom the Scottish Poor Law professes
not to provide (but nevertheless, as we see, in practice does so as much
as the English Poor Law), we find growing up in a score of towns,
comprising half the population of Scotland, an organised system of
public assistance of one kind or another, under the Distress Committees
established by the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905. We see, in town after
town, the vagrants, for whom the Parish Council does not provide,
relieved in one way or another by the Police. Thus, there is not one
section of the host of persons in Scotland who are without the
necessaries of life, of whom the Parish Council, as the Poor Law
Authority, is to-day left in undisturbed possession. For the care of the
children, the sick, the mentally defective, the aged, and the
able-bodied unemployed, Parliament has set up, in Scotland as in
England, specialised public authorities which deal with the poor, not on
account of their destitution, but in respect of the cause or character
of their need.
Fortunately, the overlap and confusion caused by these rival services
and competing Local Authorities have in Scotland not yet gone far. It is
still possible to prevent a waste of expenditure and a confusion of
functions that will certainly increase if the growing overlap is not
stopped. To us there seems to be but two lines of reform. We may, on the
one hand, ask Parliament to arrest the ever-increasing activities of the
Local Health Authorities, stop the provision of more isolation
hospitals, check the Health Visitors and the crusade against infantile
mortality, rescind the recent order of the Local Government Board
annexing to their sphere the whole range of tuberculosis, and remit all
the sick poor once more to the Parish Council and its Poorhouse. We may
propose to repeal the Unemployed Workmen Act and the Old Age Pensions
Act, and thrust back the unemployed workmen and the aged into the Poor
Law. We may recommend the withdrawal of the new powers given to the
School Boards in connection with medical inspection and school meals for
hungry children. We may, in fact, propose to revert to the position in
1845, when there was everywhere one Local Authority, and one Local
Authority only, to give public assistance to the necessitous poor. We do
not think such a course either desirable or politically practicable. We
do not believe that any Minister of the Crown will have the hardihood to
propose it; we do not believe that Scottish public opinion will tolerate
it; we do not believe that any House of Commons will agree to it.
The other alternative seems to us to be, not to reverse but to continue
the evolution that has been going on in Local Government, in Scotland as
in England. Instead of seeking to curtail the work with regard to
children, the sick, the mentally defective, the aged and the able-bodied
unemployed, which is now being undertaken by the Local Education
Authorities, the Local Health Authorities, the Local Lunacy Authorities,
the Local Pension Authorities, and the Local Unemployment Authorities,
what we recommend is that the remainder of each of these sections of the
poor who are still being looked after by the Poor Law Authorities should
be transferred to the newer specialised Authorities that have been
created.
Just as it is proposed, by the Royal Commission on the Care and Control
of the Feeble-minded, with the concurrence of practically all acquainted
with the problem, to take the persons of unsound mind, including the
epileptic and the feeble-minded, quite "out of the Poor Law," and place
them entirely in the hands of the Local Lunacy Authority, so it is
suggested that all public care of the children of school age should be
"taken out of the Poor Law" and transferred to the Local Education
Authority; that all public care of the sick and infirm (including the
maternity cases, the infants under school age, and the aged requiring
institutional care) should be "taken out of the Poor Law," and
transferred to the Local Health Authority; and that all the aged who can
and will live decently on their pensions should be "taken out of the
Poor Law," and dealt with by the Pension Committee--the whole under the
control and direction of the Parish School Board or the District
Committee, or the County or Town Council as the case may be. There would
then remain, out of all the pauper host, only the vagrants and the odds
and ends of genuinely able-bodied men who find their way to the
Poorhouse. For these who need help to find a situation if they are
merely stranded by temporary unemployment, detention colonies if they
are idle or vicious, and physical and industrial training if they have
to be maintained whilst waiting for a place, we recommend that there
should be a new authority of _national scope_--the government department
which is already being set up under the Labour Exchanges Act of 1909,
and which should also take over the work of the Distress Committees
under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905. We recommend, therefore, as
the only practicable means of preventing a wasteful and demoralising
duplication of services, the complete abolition, not only of the
Poorhouse, but also of the Poor Law itself.
_The Expediency of Preventing the Occurrence of Destitution, rather than
merely Relieving it after it has Occurred._
What we propose is no mere change of names or of official machinery. We
think the time has come when the nation should definitely adopt the
principle of using all its powers to _prevent the occurrence_ of
destitution, instead of the principle of merely relieving it after it
has occurred. Destitution, as we know, is a social disease, as
destructive to the health of the community as phthisis is; quite as
dangerous to the individual attacked, once it has gained a firm hold,
but fortunately as gradual as phthisis in its attack. The Poor Law
Authorities of Scotland have failed to prevent the occurrence of
destitution, or even to prevent pauperism, and have been unable to
provide what is required for the several sections of persons under their
charge, not because the Parish Councillors are incompetent or dishonest,
careless or corrupt, but because they have been set, not to this task at
all, but merely to that of "relieving destitution." They do relieve
destitution much more efficiently on the whole than ever before; but we
are not satisfied, nor do we think that public opinion is now satisfied,
with the spending in Scotland, year after year, more than a million
sterling in the relief of a destitution which never gets either
prevented or cured. _What the nation now asks is that men, women, and
children should, by appropriate measures, be prevented from sinking to a
condition of destitution; and that such as unavoidably fall into that
state should be taken in hand with a view, not merely to their relief,
but to their effectual cure._ This is work which a Poor Law authority,
by the very nature of its being, can never perform effectively. Any Poor
Law authority, call it by what name you may, is necessarily confined to
dealing with persons who are actually "destitute" or actually "in
distress"; it cannot reach out to anticipate, at the incipient stage,
what will, if not arrested in its growth, eventually become destitution
or distress. Similarly, a Poor Law authority must necessarily find its
operations restricted to the period during which persons are "destitute"
or "in distress," though it is precisely some disciplinary "after care"
which may be needed to prevent a relapse. In short, _except for the
purpose of alleviating momentary suffering_ (for which alone it was
originally intended), the money spent in the relief of the destitute,
begun only when they are destitute, and discontinued as soon as they
cease to be destitute, is simply wasted. If a hospital for the sick
could, by the law of its being, only admit cases when "gangrene" had
already set in, and had to discharge them the very moment that the
"fever" had been reduced, it would effect as few cures of the sick as
the Poorhouse does of the destitute. Yet no Poor Law authority, whatever
its name, can, in its treatment of the disease of destitution, transcend
the corresponding limits.
If we wish to prevent the very occurrence of destitution, and
effectively cure it when it occurs, we must look to its causes. Now,
deferring for the moment any question of human fallibility, or the
"double dose of original sin," which most of us are apt to ascribe to
those who succumb in the struggle, the investigations of this Royal
Commission reveal three broad roads along one or other of which
practically all paupers come, namely: (_a_) sickness, howsoever caused,
(_b_) neglected infancy and neglected childhood, whosoever may be in
fault, and (_c_) unemployment (including "under-employment"), by
whatsoever occasioned. If we could prevent sickness, however caused, or
effectually treat it when it occurs; if we could ensure that no child,
whatever its parentage, went without what we may call the National
Minimum of Nurture and Training; and if we could provide that no
able-bodied person was left to suffer from long-continued or chronic
unemployment, we should prevent at least nine-tenths of the destitution
that now costs the Poor Law Authorities of Scotland more than a million
per annum. To break up the Poor Law, and to transfer its several
services to the Local Education, Health, Lunacy, and Pension
Authorities, and to a national authority for the able-bodied, is to hand
over the task of treating curatively the several sections of the
destitute to _authorities charged with the prevention of the several
causes of destitution_ from which those sections are suffering. This
means a systematic attempt to arrest each of the principal causes of
eventual destitution at the very outset, in the most incipient stage of
its attack, which is always an attack of an individual human being, not
of the family as a whole. It is one person, at the outset, who has the
cough of incipient phthisis, not a whole family; though if no preventive
force is brought to bear, destitution will eventually set in and the
whole family will be on our hands. There may be in the family neglected
infants, neglected children, or feeble-minded persons lacking proper
care or control, who may not be technically destitute, who may even be
dependents of able-bodied men in work, but who, if left uncared for,
will inevitably become the destitute of subsequent years. Hence it is
vital that the Local Health Authority should be empowered and required
to search out and ensure proper treatment for the incipient stages of
all diseases. It is vital that the Lunacy Authority should be empowered
and required to search out and ensure proper care and control for all
persons certifiable as mentally defective, long before the family to
which they belong is reduced to destitution. It is vital that the Local
Education Authority should be empowered and required to search out and
ensure, quite irrespective of the family's destitution, whatever
Parliament may prescribe as the National Minimum of nurture and training
for all children, the neglect of which will otherwise bring these
children, when they grow up, themselves to a state of destitution. It is
becoming no less clear that some Authority--we say a National
Authority--must register and deal with the man who is unemployed, long
before extended unemployment has demoralised him and reduced his family
to destitution. We wish to put the issue quite clearly before the
public. The systematic campaign for the prevention of the occurrence of
destitution that we propose--that the community should undertake by
grappling with its principal causes at the incipient stages, _when they
are just beginning to affect one or other members of a family only_,
long before the family as a whole has sunk into the morass of
destitution--involves treating the individual member who is affected in
respect of the cause of his complaint, even before he is "disabled" or
in pecuniary distress. It means a systematic searching out of incipient
cases, just as the Medical Officer of Health searches out infectious
disease, or the School Attendance Officer searches out children who are
not on the school roll, even before application is made.
At present, the Local Education Authorities, the Local Health
Authorities, and the Local Lunacy Authorities only feebly and
imperfectly grapple with their task of arresting the causes of
destitution in the child, the sick person, or the person of unsound
mind, partly because they have only lately begun this part of their
work, but principally because they have not been legally empowered and
legally required to do it. Moreover, they do not yet have forced on
their attention, as they would if they had to maintain those who needed
to be cured, _the extent to which they fail to prevent_. If the Health
Committee knew that it would have eventually to maintain the sick men
whom it allowed to sink gradually into phthisis, as it has now
practically to maintain persons who contract small-pox, it would look
with a different eye upon the Medical Officer of Health's desire to
"search out" every case of incipient phthisis whilst it is yet curable,
to press upon the ignorant sufferer the best hygienic advice, and to do
what is necessary in order to enable the insidious progress of the
disease to be arrested. This does not entail that all diseases shall be
treated free, any more than the Public Health supervision of sanitation
entails that bad landlords shall have their house drainage provided at
the public cost. All the increased activity of the Public Health
authorities in searching out and treating sickness may coincide with a
systematic enforcement of personal responsibility in respect to personal
hygiene and with regard to the maintenance in health of dependents,
which we, in fact, recommend. The break-up of the Poor Law implies, in
short, not only the adoption of a systematic crusade against the several
preventable causes of destitution, but also a far more effective
enforcement of parental responsibility than is at present practicable.
It may, however, be objected that there are, at any rate, the families
to be dealt with which are now in a state of destitution; and that,
moreover, it must be anticipated, even with uniformly good
administration of the preventive services, there will not be a few
families who, as "missed cases," will have slipped into destitution,
without having had their descent arrested by the preventive action above
described. We think that each member of even such a family requires, for
restoration, specialised treatment according to his or her need. The
infant, the child of school age, the mentally defective, the sick, the
infirm or incapacitated, the boy or girl above school age, and finally
the able-bodied and able-minded adult, each requires that something
different should be done for him or her, if _that individual_ is to be
properly dealt with. The alternative, namely, to treat the family as a
whole, means to place it in the General Mixed Poorhouse, or merely to
give it a dole of Outdoor Relief. This, indeed, is to-day the dominant
practice; and as such, has been condemned by Majority and Minority
alike. It must, we think, be admitted that the several members of the
family, with their very different needs, cannot be wisely treated
without calling in the public authorities specialising on those heads,
such as the Education, Health, Lunacy, Pension, and Unemployment
Authorities. This does not mean that the needs of the other members of
the family will escape consideration. Assuming that the cause of the
destitution in which the family is plunged is the sickness of the
breadwinner, and that the other members of the family are all normal,
the Health Authority will, if he thinks domiciliary treatment desirable,
not only give the necessary medical attendance, and look after the whole
family environment by its Health Visitor, but, if there is no income,
will grant (subject to the statutory rules and the Council's own
Bye-laws) the home aliment that is requisite for the family maintenance.
Would any one suggest that the Health Committee, with its Medical
Officer and its Health Visitor, should be excluded from this case, or
that it should be precluded from treating the case at home when the
doctor reports that it can properly be so treated? If there is a
mentally defective person in such a family, ought the Lunacy Authority
to be kept out? If there are children of school age in it, is it wise to
prevent the intervention of the Education Authority and its School
Attendance Officer? We suggest that it is the business of the officers
of the County or Town Council--in particular the Registrar of Public
Assistance whom we have proposed--to see (_a_) that these Authorities do
not overlap, and (_b_) that they are all consulted as regards such
members of the family as come within their respective spheres of
treatment. We see no need for any general Poor Law or "Public Assistance
Committee" at all.
Thus there are two main reasons for the Scheme of Reform that we
propose. By breaking up the Poor Law into its component services, and
transferring each of these to the organ of government _which is already
performing the same service for the population at large_, we (_a_) stop
the present overlapping and confusion, (_b_) continue the evolution
which has been silently going on in Scotland for a whole generation, and
(_c_) introduce a logical order into both Central and Local Government.
But the scheme has a far larger and deeper significance than any
increase in administrative efficiency or any promotion of economy and
simplicity in Local Government. The reform that we advocate, by
emphasising everywhere the Principle of Prevention, and especially by
systematically searching out neglected infancy and childhood,
preventable sickness, uncontrolled feeble-mindedness and uncared-for
epilepsy, unwarded vagrancy and that hopeless worklessness that is so
demoralising to mind and body, brings with it the sure and certain hope
that we may, at no distant date, by patient and persistent effort on
these lines, remove from our midst the intolerable infamy to a Christian
and civilised State of the persistence of a mass of chronic destitution,
spreading like a cancerous growth from one generation to another of our
fellow-citizens.
_The "Moral Factor" in Destitution_
Such being the grounds for our proposals, we have sought to weigh and
appreciate the various arguments that can be urged against them. The
most radical objection, and we infer the most deeply felt, against the
Supersession of the Poor Law Authority by the various specialised and
preventive Authorities that are already at work, seems to be a
conviction that, in proposing to treat the problem of destitution as one
of Sickness or Mental Defect, of Infirmity or Old Age, of Unemployment
or Neglected Childhood, we are ignoring the "moral factor." It is
alleged that, among all paupers, notwithstanding the different roads by
which they may have come to destitution, there is a certain moral taint;
and that, in view of the importance of properly treating this defect of
character, all paupers, whatever their age or sex or physical or mental
condition ought to be dealt with by an authority _specialising on this
defect_; and this, it is assumed, is what the Poor Law Authority is, or
should be made to become. In order that we may be quite sure that we are
stating this objection fairly, we quote the exact words of the most
accomplished opponent of our proposals, Professor Bernard Bosanquet:--
"The antagonism cannot be put too strongly. The Majority proceed upon
the principle that where there is a failure of social self-maintenance
in the sense above defined, there is a defect in the citizen character,
or at least a grave danger to its integrity; add that therefore every
case of this kind raises a problem which is "moral," in the sense of
affecting the whole capacity of self-management, to begin with, in the
person who has failed, and secondarily, in the whole community so far as
influenced by expectation and example. This relation to a man's whole
capacity for self-management, his "_moral_," is a distinctive feature, I
take it, which separates the treatment required by the destitute or
necessitous from anything that can be offered to citizens who are
maintaining themselves in a normal course of life."[865]
[865] "The Majority Report," by Professor Bernard Bosanquet, in
_Sociological Review_, April 1909 (vol. ii. No. 2).
In this cogent argument for the retention of the Category of the
Destitute, and of one Authority, and one Authority only, for all classes
of destitute persons, we see two distinct and separate assumptions, one
as to fact, and the other as to social expediency. We have first the
suggestion that, in all classes of persons who need maintenance at the
hands of the State, there is, as a matter of fact, a moral defect,
common to the whole class, and requiring specific treatment. Secondly,
we see creeping out from behind this suggestion, a further assumption as
to the policy which ought to be pursued by the Poor Law Authority. This
Authority, which is to have in its charge all the heterogeneous
population of infants, children, sick and mentally defective persons,
the aged and the infirm, the widows, the vagrants, and the unemployed,
is to treat them, not with a single eye to what is best calculated to
turn them, or any of them, into efficient citizens, not even with a
single eye to what will most successfully remedy the "moral defect"
which they are assumed all to possess, but with the quite different
object of warning off or deterring, "by expectation and example," other
persons for applying for like treatment. In other words, we must, by
keeping all the different varieties of people who require State aid
under one Authority, and under one that assumes the existence of this
"moral defect," retain for all alike, not only the "stigma of
pauperism," but also a method of provision which will "deter" others
from coming to be treated. As this is the only philosophical argument
that we have encountered, by way of justification for the existence of
one Authority, and one Authority only, to which the State should
indiscriminately commit the care of the infants, the children of school
age, the sick, the mentally defective, the aged and infirm, the vagrants
and the unemployed workmen in distress, it requires detailed
examination.
Let us first examine the initial assumption that the miscellaneous
multitude who, year by year, come on public funds for maintenance, are,
as a matter of fact, one and all, characterised by a particular moral
defect--a feature so uniform, so important, and so specific as to
outweigh the differences between infants and adults, the healthy and the
sick, the sane and the mentally defective, the aged and the able-bodied;
and to require the aggregation of all of them together under a single
Authority in each locality, which should specialise upon this common
characteristic. We have, in the first place, to realise that two-fifths
of all the paupers are infants or children of school age; that is to
say, human beings rendered destitute, not by any action or inaction of
their own, but through something which has happened to their parents or
guardians. An enormous proportion of these children are destitute merely
because they are orphans. What rational ground have we for assuming,
without enquiry, that these little ones are suffering from any "defect
in the citizen character," or from any "moral" defect whatsoever? Their
fathers may well have had defects, for they have died; though even with
regard to them the more obvious inference would seem to be that they had
physical defects or weaknesses; and this, in view of the frequency of
mere accident, cannot be deduced with any certainty. We can, at any
rate, infer nothing as to the character of the mothers from the fact
that the fathers have died. Moreover, even if we could make the
assumption that the children of fathers who have died prematurely, or
who from some other cause have left their offspring without property,
necessarily inherited some weakness of character or specific moral
defect, it does not seem to follow that the best way of counteracting
this inheritance would be to herd such children together, to segregate
them apart from normal children, to brand them as paupers, and to commit
them to the care of an Authority not specially concerned with dealing
with children as children, but regarding children as only one variety of
the pauper class. It seems clear that the real justification for keeping
together all the infants and children whom the State has to maintain,
and for excluding them from the care of the Local Education Authority,
is not any consideration of what is likely to be best for such
children--not even what is best calculated to counteract any
disadvantageous tendencies that some of them may have inherited--but the
second assumption to which we drew attention, namely, that it is
expedient so to treat those whom the State must maintain that other
persons will not, "by expectation and example," be led to apply for
similar treatment. The argument, in short, is really one for affixing
the "stigma of pauperism" to all the children that the State has to
maintain, not because this will make them grow up into efficient
citizens--even, perhaps, at the cost of injuriously affecting their
education and their character--but in order merely to prevent other
children becoming chargeable. This policy of definitely "Poor Law
treatment" for the Children of the State, the Scottish Parish Councils,
to their honour, have always repudiated. But if this policy of "Poor Law
treatment" of the child is repudiated--if the State is really to set
itself to bring up the boys and girls whom it finds on its hands with a
single eye to their development into efficient citizens--why should the
State not use for them the organ which it has fashioned for this very
purpose? What ground is there for treating the child as a pauper at all,
when the Local Education Authority stands there, in every parish,
already authorised by law to provide all that is requisite, and prepared
to treat the child simply as a child?
Passing from the two-fifths of the paupers who are infants or children,
we have then to realise that something like another two-fifths of all
those who, in Scotland, apply for maintenance are not merely "disabled"
in the technical sense, but are definitely suffering from some specific
disease or chronic infirmity of body, for which they have to be
medically treated. If the patient happens to be suffering from certain
diseases, which are specified in an ever-lengthening schedule, the
argument about the "defect in the citizen character," and the "grave
danger to its integrity" is abandoned; the sick person is then, by
common consent, searched out, urged to accept State aid, freely
maintained at the public expense, and--what is very significant to us in
this argument--treated without the slightest pretence that he has a
moral defect, and without any idea of curing that defect, or avoiding
the danger to his integrity, but simply and solely with the object of
restoring him at the earliest moment to physical health. Meanwhile the
responsible Authority is at work effecting, by cleansing, disinfecting,
draining, and improving the housing, the water-supply, and the general
sanitation, alterations in the environment in which the disease has
occurred, in order to prevent its recurrence, either in that patient or
in any one else. The patients of the Local Health Authority, though
their numbers are growing day by day, the Majority Report leaves outside
the "one Authority and only one Authority" which (as it is suggested)
ought to deal with all those for whom maintenance has to be provided.
Whilst we on the Poor Law Commission were deliberating, the Local
Government Board for Scotland added to this class all the enormous
number of persons suffering from tuberculosis.[866] In spite of the fact
that the more enterprising of the Parish Councils are already beginning
to provide extensively for phthisis patients in their Poorhouses, the
work is now to be undertaken by the Local Health Authorities. We note
that the Majority Report makes no protest against this enormous
extension of the area of overlap between the two sets of Authorities,
and expressly assumes that, to the extent that tuberculosis prevails
among the present pauper host, the Poor Law is to be broken up, and its
functions gradually taken over by the Local Health Authorities.
Apparently it is admitted that, with regard to persons suffering from
tuberculosis in any of its forms, we must give up the assumption that
they have some "defect in the citizen character," in common with the
vagrants and the unemployed workmen; or at any rate we must give up any
idea of treating them for this moral defect or grave danger to their
integrity.
[866] Circular of 10th March, 1906, of Local Government Board for
Scotland.
What the public welfare requires is, as is now admitted, that these
sick persons should be treated with a single eye to arresting the
course of their disease, and restoring them as soon as possible to
physical health. Moreover, as sickness is plainly, to an undefined
extent, the result of bad environment--of over-crowding, insanitation,
unwholesome food, polluted water, or injurious conditions of
employment--it is important that it should be in the hands of an
authority officially cognisant of this environment, and empowered to
alter that which is producing the sickness. The question necessarily
arises whether there is any ground for dealing with any neglected sick
persons who need medical treatment, in any different way from that
in which we have now decided to treat phthisis patients--whether we
have any more ground for assuming the co-existence of a "defect in
the citizen character" or "grave danger to its integrity," along with
cancer, rheumatism, lead poisoning, hernia, or varicose veins, than
along with pulmonary consumption--whether, in fact, the State has any
justification for treating any sick person at all otherwise than with a
single eye to arresting their diseases and preventing their occurrence
in others--whether in the interests of the community as a whole we are
not bound to drop the idea of "deterring" the sick "by expectation and
example" from coming to be cured, and are not bound therefore to put
the whole function into the hands of the organ which the State has
created for the prevention and treatment of disease, namely, the Local
Health Authority?
When we turn to the aged, who make up the bulk of the remainder of the
pauper host, the question of whether or not we can assume the universal
existence of a "defect in the citizen character" or "grave danger to its
integrity" becomes irrelevant. As there can, speaking practically, be no
idea of improving the character of the aged, it is difficult to see why
it should be suggested that the worn-out men and women for whom the
State has to provide, and whose moral defects cannot now be cured,
should necessarily be merged with the persons whose assumed moral
defects are still curable, and who are therefore to be placed under an
Authority specialising on this business of treating the "defect in the
citizen character" that always accompanies the need for State
maintenance. In the case of the aged, in fact, the assumption that they
should be placed under a Poor Law Authority with a view to remedying
their assumed defects becomes hypocritical. In their case, it is clear,
their retention in the class "pauper," and their relegation to the Poor
Law Authority, is advocated, not for their own good. They are, it is
suggested, to be accorded a treatment other than that which the State
would otherwise afford to them--that is to say, they are to suffer the
stigma of pauperism--merely in order "by expectation and example" to
deter other persons from taking advantage in their old age of the
maintenance which the State affords. This policy we are relieved from
having to characterise, because by the passing of the Old Age Pensions
Act of 1908, the community has, even whilst we were deliberating,
definitely declared against it. We see, therefore, no need whatsoever,
now that there is in every County and Burgh a special Authority for the
aged (the Local Pension Committee), for relegating any aged persons to
the Poor Law Authority.
Of the non-able-bodied paupers--and it is for the non-able-bodied that
the Scottish Poor Law lawfully provides--there remain only "the
feeble-minded," and the epileptic, and the persons of "unsound mind,"
who make up nearly one-fifth of the whole of Scottish pauperism. Of this
fifth, about two-thirds are already under the administrative care, not
of the Poor Law Authority at all, but of the Local Lunacy Authority,
whilst about one-third (including the epileptics, the uncertified
imbeciles, and the merely feeble-minded) are still looked after by the
Parish Councils. All these persons, we must admit, actually do have,
co-existing with their pauperism, a "defect in the citizen character," a
mental weakness frequently "moral" in its nature, and one which is
coming more and more to be regarded as susceptible to appropriate
treatment. Here then, if anywhere, one might think that there is ground
for assigning these paupers to the Authority which is by its supporters
assumed to specialise on the treatment of the specific "defect in the
citizen character," which is asserted to be co-extensive with the need
for State maintenance. But the Royal Commission on the Care and Control
of the Feeble-minded, after exhaustively examining the subject and
concentrating its whole attention upon it, came to the conclusion that
the Poor Law Authority was inherently unsuited for treating any kind of
mentally defective person, and decided to recommend the removal of all
such persons from the sphere of the Poor Law, and their being placed
henceforth entirely in the hands of an Authority, the Local Lunacy
Authority, which had both the special knowledge and the special
machinery for treating the _mental defectiveness that had been actually
proved to exist_, rather than the hypothetical "defect in the citizen
character" that their need of State maintenance is supposed to imply.
Our colleagues who have signed the Majority Report, torn between their
own assumption of the need for "one Authority and only one Authority"
for all the destitute, and the very authoritative recommendations of the
contemporary Royal Commission, have apparently been unable to come to
any certain conclusion as to what they wish done with regard to this
one-fifth of all the paupers. In the Majority Report for England and
Wales, dated February 1909, our colleagues concurred with us in
recommending the carrying out of the proposals of the Royal Commission
on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded; in desiring the transfer
of all provision for the mentally defective to the Local Lunacy
Authorities; in urging the removal from this unfortunate class of the
"stigma of pauperism," and in so far "breaking up the Poor Law," and
departing from the idea of relegating all who needed State maintenance
to "one Authority and one Authority only," which should treat them all
for their assumed common "defect in the citizen character."[867] In the
case of Ireland, where the lunatic asylums are at present entirely
outside the Poor Law, and their inmates are not paupers, our colleagues,
in their Majority Report, dated June 1909, recommended exactly the
opposite course from that which they proposed for England and Wales.
Instead of transferring the feeble-minded to the Local Lunacy Authority,
they recommended that the Local Lunacy Authority should cease to exist
as a separate Authority; and that all the lunatics and lunatic asylums
should be transferred, along with the unemployed workmen and the
infectious sick, to the new Authority that they wish to administer the
Poor Law. When we come to Scotland, our colleagues, in their Majority
Report dated October 1909, _made no recommendations on the subject at
all as to the Authority_;[868] and are therefore in the position of
implicitly endorsing the _status quo_, which, as we have mentioned, is
one of overlap between the Poor Law and Lunacy Authorities, each of
which has under its administrative care a certain proportion of the
lunatics, idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, and feeble-minded for whom
Scotland has to provide, and with regard to some of whom very inadequate
provision is now made. We cannot agree to leave the matter in this way.
We do not see that the nature of lunacy or feeble-mindedness differs in
the three Kingdoms to such an extent as to warrant three different
policies in its treatment. We think that the first mind of our
colleagues was the best. We, like the Royal Commission on the Care and
Control of the Feeble-minded, see no reason why lunatics should be
treated as paupers any more than as criminals. We certainly see no
reason why Scottish lunatics and feeble-minded should remain paupers,
when English lunatics and feeble-minded are to be relieved from this
stigma. We, therefore, think that Scotland should see to it that the
mentally defective of all grades are, at the earliest possible moment,
wholly removed from the Poor Law and the Poor Law Authority, and placed
entirely under the care of the special Lunacy Authority, which can deal
with them with a single eye to the needs of their condition.
[867] "With regard to this class, their case is fully dealt with
in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of
the Feeble-minded. If, as we hope, the recommendations of that
Commission are carried into effect, a system of control over the
feeble-minded will be initiated which will free the Poor Law
Administration from one of its greatest difficulties. Meanwhile,
we think that, as a provisional measure, the Poor Law Authorities
should be given power to detain feeble-minded persons who come
under their care" (Majority Report for England and Wales, Part IX.
par. 151, Class II. (_a_)).
[868] We find merely a recommendation that powers of detention of
unmarried mothers be given to the Poor Law Authority. "We think
that if they can be medically certified as feeble-minded, they
should be detained by a judicial warrant authorising such
detention, and we approve the recommendations to that effect made
by the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the
Feeble-minded" (Majority Report for Scotland, Part III. ch. xii.
sec. 323). In a later section of the Report, in describing the
cases in which it is recommended that the Poor Law Authority
should exercise powers of "detention or continuous treatment," we
read that "All feeble-minded persons, whether unmarried mothers or
others, should, we think, be subject to complete control on the
lines laid down by the Commission on the Care and Control of the
Feeble-minded."--_Ibid._ Part VII. ch. v. sec. 66. We can only
infer that our colleagues wish to retain these persons in Scotland
under the Poor Law Authority, and to continue to include them as
paupers.