Chapter 25

[380]Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. xliv-lii.

[381]Ibid.p. x.

[382]Official Circular, Nos. 14 and 15, N.S., April and May 1848, p. 237.

[383]Circular of 1st August 1857, in Tenth Annual Report, 1857, p. 37. The Central Authority did not, prior to 1867, face the responsibility of deciding to require boards of guardians to provide hospital accommodation even for infectious diseases. In 1863, indeed, under fear of smallpox, it got so far as to transmit to Metropolitan boards of guardians an alarmist letter by Dr. Buchanan, and to permit the taking of temporary premises for "the destitute poor attacked by contagious or infectious disease" (Circular of 30th April 1863, in Fifteenth Annual Report, 1862-3, pp. 37-9). We believe that practically nothing was done upon this. In 1866, when cholera was imminent, another Circular was sent which, significantly enough, makes no mention of temporary hospitals, but points to an increase of the outdoor medical relief, disinfectants, sustenance and clothing to meet the "great increase of destitution" to be apprehended. "As far as practicable ... the admission of cholera patients into the workhouse should be prevented" (Circular of 27th July 1866, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1866-7, pp. 39-40).

[384]Seefor all this the Eighteenth Annual Report, 1865-6, pp. 15-16; Nineteenth Annual Report, 1866-7, pp. 15-18, 39; Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, pp. 25-28; Report of Dr. E. Smith on Metropolitan Workhouse Infirmaries and Sick Wards, in House of Commons, No. 372 of 1866;The Condition of the Sick in London Workhouse Infirmaries(Association for the Improvement of the London Workhouse Infirmaries, 1867);Opinions of the Press upon the Conditions of the Sick Poor in London Workhouses(ibid.1867);The Management of the Infirmaries of the Strand Union, the Rotherhithe and the Paddington Workhouses(1867?).

[385]The provincial newspapers took up the work that theLancethad begun. On 31st January 1865, a long report appeared in theManchester Examinerrevealing serious deficiencies in the Manchester Workhouse sick wards.

[386]Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, pp. 17-21. This new departure of the Central Authority was long strenuously resisted by many of the boards of guardians who prided themselves on the purity of their Poor Law policy. Thus, the published complaints of the Manchester Workhouse Infirmary led to an inquiry by the inspector, who made various suggestions for improvement. The board of guardians, on the advice of their own medical officer, held that the existing conditions were sufficiently satisfactory. Finally, after fifteen months, the Central Authority censured the master, asked for more nurses and (while avoiding any censure of the guardians for their past policy) practically invited them to adopt the new standpoint (MS. Minutes, Manchester Board of Guardians, 1st February 1865; 22nd February and 3rd May 1866). Two years later, Manchester was still objecting. When a conference of important North Country boards of guardians in 1862 (W. Rathbone presiding) had recommended a national grant-in-aid to improve the "pauper hospitals," the Manchester Board of Guardians formally dissented (though now only by a majority of one), protesting: "That the much higher system of medical treatment and nursing and the other advantages sought to be introduced into workhouse hospitals by the proposed measures would tend to discourage the provident habits and self-reliance of the industrious poor by providing for them therein far better accommodation and treatment than they can usually secure for themselves in cases of sickness" (MS. Minutes, Manchester Board of Guardians, 20th February 1868).

[387]Circular of 5th May 1865; Eighteenth Annual Report, 1865-6, pp. 16, 24-5, 62-8;Nurses in Workhouses and Workhouse Infirmaries, by Miss Wilson, 1890.

[388]Hansard, 8th February 1867, vol. 185, p. 163.

[389]See, for instance, the Special Orders for the Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum District, 23rd April and 16th May 1868, and 7th March 1871; and that for the Central London Sick Asylum District of 2nd May 1868.

[390]Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 16-18; Circular of 30th October 1869; Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. xxxvii-xli.

[391]The "policy of providing workhouses for separate classes of the poor was fully recognised by the Commissioners of Inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law in 1834, who in their Report recommended 'that the Central Board should be empowered to cause any number of parishes to be incorporated for the purpose of workhouse management, and for providing new workhouses where necessary, and to assign to those workhouses separate classes of poor though composed of the poor of distinct parishes.' And in another part of the same Report they say that it appears to them 'that both the requisite classification and the requisite superintendence may be better obtained in separate buildings than under a single roof. Each class then might receive an appropriate treatment; the old might enjoy their indulgences without torment from the boisterous, the children be educated, and the able-bodied subjected to such courses of labour and of discipline as will repel the idle and vicious'" (Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 16-17).

[392]For a Special Order for such an Infirmary,seethat of 27th June 1871.

[393]Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, p. xi.

[394]Ibid.p. x.

[395]Seethe statistical inquiries summarised in the Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. xxiv-xxviii; House of Commons, No. 312 of 1865; No. 372 of 1866; No. 4 of 1867-8; No. 445 of 1868; House of Lords, No. 216 of 1866.

[396]Seethe Special Orders of 15th May, 18th June, and 17th July 1867; and 23rd December 1870.

[397]Twenty-second Annual Report of Poor Law Board (G. S. Goschen, president), 1869-70, p. lii. Already in 1846 and again in 1853 the Central Authority had expressed its "decided opinion ... that money judiciously expended ... in the improvement of the sanitary condition of the poorer classes, and in the prevention or removal of causes of disease, has a direct tendency to diminish or prevent future destitution and pauperism; and will thus be found to be most profitably expended, even in reference to the more direct object of the duties of the guardians" (Circular of 21st September 1853; in Sixth Annual Report, 1853, p. 36).

[398]Fifth Annual Report, 1852, pp. 7, 152.

[399]Twelfth Annual Report, 1859-60, p. 17.

[400]Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-71, p. xxiii.

[401]25 & 26 Vic. c. 111, secs. 8, 20, 31 (Lunacy Acts Amendment Act, 1862).

[402]Sixteenth Annual Report, 1863-4, pp. 21, 38-9.

[403]Circular of 15th December 1862, in Fifteenth Annual Report, 1862-3, pp. 35-7.

[404]On 1st January 1859, the number of persons of unsound mind in the workhouses was 7963 (Twelfth Annual Report, 1859-60, p. 17). This had risen by 1870 to 11,243 (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-71, p. xxiii).

[405]Poor Law Commissioners, 24th December 1845; in MS. records, Manchester Board of Guardians.

[406]Official Circular, No. 25, N.S., May 1849, pp. 70-1.

[407]In 1868 visiting committees were recommended to see that weak-minded inmates were not entrusted with the care of young children (Circular of 6th July 1868 in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, p. 53).

[408]MS. Minutes, Plymouth Board of Guardians, 28th January 1846.

[409]Ibid.5th November 1847. Some of the rooms were only 3-1/4 feet long and 7 feet wide, in fact, mere cupboards, which the Lunacy Commissioners said were unfit for any one. Yet nothing was done, and the "rooms" were still occupied in 1854 when the district auditor mildly commented on the fact (Letter Book, Plymouth Board of Guardians, August 1854).

[410]Circular of 27th February 1857, in Tenth Annual Report, 1857, p. 34.

[411]House of Commons, No. 50, Session 1 of 1867, p. 247.

[412]Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, p. 60.

[413]House of Commons, No. 50, Session 1 of 1867, p. 444.

[414]_Ibid._ p. 426.

[415]_Ibid._ p. 407.

[416]_Ibid._ p. 114.

[417]Circular of 21st March 1870, in Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-71, p. 3. [418] There had apparently been a doubt as to whether a husband was legally bound to contribute towards the maintenance of a wife who had been removed under legal authority to a lunatic asylum. In 1850 the Central Authority got an Act passed to require him to pay (13 and 14 Vic. c. 101, sec. 4) on the ground that "great hardship has been frequently occasioned to parishes, who have been burthened with the heavy expense of such maintenance without the means of recovering from the husband even a partial reimbursement" (Third Annual Report, 1850, p. 16).

[418]There had apparently been a doubt as to whether a husband was legally bound to contribute towards the maintenance of a wife who had been removed under legal authority to a lunatic asylum. In 1850 the Central Authority got an Act passed to require him to pay (13 and 14 Vic. c. 101, sec. 4) on the ground that "great hardship has been frequently occasioned to parishes, who have been burthened with the heavy expense of such maintenance without the means of recovering from the husband even a partial reimbursement" (Third Annual Report, 1850, p. 16).

[419]Special Orders of 18th June 1867, 6th October 1870, 23rd December 1870, 17th June 1871, etc. It may be noted that in 1862 the Guardians of St. George's, Southwark, provided a separate establishment at Mitcham for their idiotic and imbecile paupers, which was regulated by Special Order of 30th April 1862.

[420]On 1st January 1852, the number in the county or borough asylums was 9412, and in licensed houses 2584; making a total of 11,996 out of 21,158 paupers of unsound mind (Fifth Annual Report, 1852, p. 152). On 1st January 1870, the number in asylums had risen to 26,634, and that in licensed houses had fallen to 1589, making a total of 28,223 out of 46,548 paupers of unsound mind (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-71, p. xxiii).

[421]25 & 26 Vic. c. 43, sec. 10 (Poor Law Certified Schools Act of 1862); 30 & 31 Vic. c. 106, sec. 21 (1867); 31 & 32 Vic. c. 122, sec. 42 (1868).

[422]In 1849 the expenses of conveying a blind pauper to hospital were allowed to be paid under the head of non-resident relief in case of sickness (Official Circular, No. 24, N.S., April 1849, p. 64).

[423]For instance, in 1861, the Central Authority, in reply to a request from the Guardians of St. James's, Westminster, recommended the application of the workhouse test for the able-bodied males, but as regards the aged and infirm, warmly approved the policy of the guardians, to "cheerfully supply all that their necessities and infirmities require" (Poor Law Board, 19th January 1861, in Thirteenth Annual Report, 1860-1, p. 36).

[424]Letter to Board of Guardians, Barnsley Union, 26th October 1852, in House of Commons, No. 111 of 1852-3, p. 17.

[425]General Order of 25th August 1852, art. 1 (in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, p. 17).

[426]Circular of 25th August 1852, in Fifth Annual Report 1853, p. 22.

[427]MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 18th October 1852.

[428]Ibid.Norwich Board of Guardians, 5th October 1852.

[429]Ibid.7th December 1852.

[430]Ibid.; also Circular of 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, pp. 28-31. The Salford Union took part in a meeting of Lancashire Guardians on the subject (Salford Union to Poor Law Board, 26th October 1855, in Eighth Annual Report, 1855, p. 50).

[431]Letter to Board of Guardians, Ashton-under-Lyne Union, 8th October 1852; in House of Commons, No. 111 of 1852-3, p. 14.

[432]General Order, 14th December 1852, and Circular of same date, in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, pp. 24, 29.

[433]Circular of 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, p. 29.

[434]Out of a total of outdoor paupers on 1st January 1871 (exclusive of vagrants and the insane) of 880,709, the destitution was "caused by old age or permanent disability" in the case of 423,206, viz. 117,681 men, 265,638 women, and 39,887 children dependent on them (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, p. 378).

[435]It must be remembered that, as already mentioned, it was no part of the policy of the Central Authority to relieve in the workhouse any of the aged and infirm or of the sick who preferred to remain outside, and who were (so far as the published documents show) to continue to receive outdoor relief.

[436]Second Annual Report, 1849, p. 159.

[437]Life and Times of Thomas Wakley, by S. Squire Sprigge, 1897.See, for a contemporary indictment,The Russell Predictions on the Working Classes, the National Debt and the New Poor Law Dissected, by John Bowen, 1850.

[438]Pauperism and Poor Laws, by Robert Pashley, Q.C., 1852, pp. 364-5.

[439]On 1st January 1871 we estimate that of the 55,832 children on indoor relief, only 4979 were in district schools, and some 9000 in union boarding schools, leaving about 40,000 living in the workhouses.

[440]Regulations relating to the Classification of Workhouse Inmates, in House of Commons, No. 485 of 1854.

[441]Mr. C. P. Villiers,Hansard, 4th May 1860, vol. clviii. p. 694.

[442]Dr. E. Smith, Medical Officer to Poor Law Board, in Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, p. 43.

[443]Circular of 15th June 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 48-9; Circular of 29th September 1870, in Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, p. 9. This was the more important as Dr. Smith held that "during the night at all seasons, and during a large part of the day in cold and wet weather, the windows cannot be opened with propriety" (Report of Dr. E. Smith on Metropolitan Workhouse Infirmaries and Sick Wards, in House of Commons, No. 372 of 1866, p. 53).

[444]Circular Letter of 6th July 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, p. 55.

[445]Circular of 15th June 1868, inibid.pp. 48-50.

[446]Ibid.p. 50.

[447]Ibid.

[448]Ibid.p. 51.

[449]Ibid.p. 49.

[450]Circular of 15th June 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, p. 51.

[451]We soon see the effect of this action by the Central Authority in the rapid growth of the capital expenditure of the boards of guardians. The annual reports of the next few years record extensive new buildings. In the thirty-one years down to 1864-5, the total sum authorised for the building, altering, and enlarging of workhouses and schools had reached £6,059,571, or an average of £195,541 a year (Seventeenth Annual Report, 1864-5, pp. 328-9). Within six years this had risen to £8,406,215 (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, pp. 446-53). Of the new capital outlay in these six years of no less than £2,346,644 or £391,108 a year, half had taken place in the Metropolis, and a quarter in Lancashire.

[452]Circular of 15th June 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 47-8.

[453]Circular of 13th June 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 44-6.

[454]Report of Dr. E. Smith on Metropolitan Workhouse Infirmaries and Sick Wards, in House of Commons, No. 372 of 1866, pp. 51-2.

[455]Circular of 20th July 1866, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1866-7, p. 39.

[456]It appears from a Minute of Lord Ebrington that, on entering the Poor Law Board, he was much struck by there being no physiological information available in the office as to the proper amount of food required or as to the physiological equivalents of different foods. The dietaries had apparently all been sanctioned without reference to such an inquiry. He called for a report, and, we believe, had an investigation made by Dr. Lyon (afterwards Lord) Playfair. The Report (signed Thomas Harries, and dated June 1st 1850) reveals the most astounding differences between the amounts of food, the proportions and amounts of nitrogenous materials, and the cost of the dietaries sanctioned for 529 unions. (Eighty-four unions had no dietary sanctioned.) In Berkshire, for instance, the Central Authority had approved of the pauper in the Cookham Union getting only 15-9/10 oz. of nitrogenous ingredients (per day?), whilst the pauper in the Wokingham Union was allowed 24-1/10 oz. In the Metropolis, the inmates of the West London Workhouse had been directed to exist on 14-7/10 oz. a day, whilst those in the Bermondsey Workhouse had been permitted to consume 27-6/10 oz. It was found, contrary to the common belief, that the dietaries of the workhouses in the Metropolis and the great towns were, on an average, lower than those of rural unions. There had, moreover, been a total lack of quantitative definition of the ingredients of soups, puddings, etc., with the result of extraordinary diversity. Sometimes able-bodied women were allowed the same quantities as men; sometimes much smaller quantities. We cannot trace whether any action was taken on this Memorandum. No General Order or Circular was issued on the subject at the time, or, indeed, for more than a dozen years; and the workhouse dietaries remained extremely diverse. But the Central Authority doubtless acted on the information in its possession. In September 1850, for instance, it demurred to approving a dietary proposed by the Bradfield Guardians, on the ground that it was "so decidedly less nutritious than those of other unions, in fact, only half what is given in some, and more than a quarter less than the general average." The Bradfield Guardians triumphantly retorted that their proposed dietary for paupers provided more nourishment than the independent labouring classes of the neighbourhood got in their own homes! (MS. Minutes, Bradfield Board of Guardians, 10th September 1850); which, considering the wages of the Berkshire farm labourers, is not unlikely to have been true.

[457]Circular of 14th September 1866, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1866-7, pp. 395-6.

[458]Circular of 7th December 1868, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 41-4. In the different Metropolitan workhouses the Central Authority sought to obtain absolute uniformity, and to this end had a model drawn up which was submitted to the guardians for their adoption. It is strange that this dietary allowed less bread and more meat than was recommended by the Board in the circular just described, only a few months later—perhaps because larger allowances of meat were made in the dietaries already in force in London unions. This dietary, prepared by Dr. Markham, contained tables for the able-bodied, the aged, and inmates engaged on extra labour, in each case of both sexes, but not for the other classes named in the above-mentioned circular. The points chiefly dwelt upon were the necessity of good cooking, of giving reasonable quantities of food, sufficient but not wasteful, and of obtaining materials of good quality, so as to attain the greatest possible economy (Circular of 23rd April 1868, inibid.pp. 35-41). It is to be noted that the Central Authority issued no order on the subject. The result was that in most cases the guardians practically ignored the suggestions, and continued in their diversity. Camberwell, for instance, continued to allow the able-bodied pauper 107 oz. of bread per week, whereas the Poor Law Board had suggested 76 oz. only. The hated oatmeal porridge and suet pudding were minimised (Report of Mr. J. H. Bridges, 15th May 1873).

[459]The average cost of in-maintenance throughout the Kingdom (apart from buildings, repairs, rates, salaries, etc.) appears to have risen between 1863 and 1870 from £4·340 for the half-year to £4·781, or by over 10 per cent. The 125,368 indoor paupers on 1st July 1863 cost £521,292 for the half-year ended Michaelmas 1863 (Seventeenth Annual Report, 1864-5, pp. 189 and 198); whereas, the 144,470 indoor paupers on 1st July 1870 cost £690,812 for the half-year ended Michaelmas 1870 (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, pp. 349 and 367). In the Metropolitan unions the average cost for the half-year rose from 5·077 to 5·588, or by slightly over 10 per cent. We gather that the corresponding amounts for 1905 were not much above £6 for the whole country and £7 for the Metropolis, which does not seem a great further advance for a quarter of a century.

[460]Office Minute of 1873. This had been pointed out by Mr. Corbett in 1868. "In none of these workhouses is it possible to apply the workhouse as a test of destitution to single able-bodied men, nor can indoor relief be afforded to those with families in many instances in which it would be desirable" (Mr. Corbett's Report, 4th January 1868, in Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, p. 126).

[461]Mr. C. P. Villiers, President of the Poor Law Board, 4th May 1860,Hansard, vol. clviii. p. 694.

[462]12 & 13 Vic. c. 103, sec. 20; Second Annual Report, 1849, p. 12.

[463]"Your petitioners having had practical proof of the tendency of labour to accumulate beyond the bounds of remunerative investment for capital, consider that a well-arranged system of emigration is the present most feasible mode of preserving a correct equilibrium between the supply and demand for labour" (MS. Minutes, Manchester Board of Guardians, 12th July 1849).

[464]Second Annual Report, 1849, p. 12.

[465]Fifth Annual Report, 1852, p. 7.

[466]Seethe total given years later, in Ninth Annual Report, 1856, p. 119.

[467]Sixth Annual Report, 1853, p. 6.

[468]Seventh Annual Report, 1854, p. 8.

[469]Twelfth Annual Report, 1859-60, p. 19.

[470]Mr. C. P. Villiers, President of Poor Law Board, 27th April 1863,Hansard, vol. clxx. pp. 814-15.

[471]Nineteenth Annual Report, 1866-7, p. 19.

[472]Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, pp. 33, 398.

[473]Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. lvi.-lvii.

[474]Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, pp. xlvi., 441.

[475]Seethe total in Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, p. 441.

[476]Letter of 8th April 1850, inOfficial Circular, July 1850, No. 39, N.S. p. 108.

[477]Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 25th August 1852, and 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, pp. 19, 26; General Order of 1st January 1869, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, p. 81.

[478]Circular of 25th August 1852, in Fifth Annual Report, 1853, p. 23.

[479]Ibid.

[480]Letter of May 1849, inOfficial Circular, No. 25, N.S. 1849, p. 71.

[481]Outdoor Relief Regulation Order of 25th August and 14th December 1852, in Fifth Annual Report, 1852, pp. 19, 26; General Order of 1st January 1869, in Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, p. 81.

[482]Official Circular, September 1850, No. 41, N.S. p. 131.

[483]The policy of the Central Authority seems, down to this date, to have contemplated the supplementing of outdoor relief, not only by charitable gifts in kind, but also by money. At Poplar, in 1868, a special committee draws attention to the "instruction" of the Poor Law Board that when relief is given to persons in receipt of charitable relief, the relief given must be only so much as, with the assistance of the charitable relief, will suffice for the relief of such person's actual necessities (MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 22nd September 1868).

[484]The number of relieving officers in the Metropolis had already increased from 102 in 1866 to 161 in 1870. It now rose further to 190 in February, 1873 (Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted for circulation in 1873). The number is now (1907) about 205.

[485]Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. xxxii-xxxiv, 9-30. Mr. Goschen directed an inspector to make a special inquiry into the administration of outdoor relief in the Metropolis, and this was followed by similar inquiries in the provinces (Twenty-third Annual Report, 1870-1, pp. ix-xxi, 32-173; First Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1871-2, pp. xv, 88-215; Second Annual Report, 1872-3, pp. xvi-xviii; Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. xx, 66-116, 136-209). The reports that resulted revealed many defects and some malpractices, but we do not find that there was any action by the Central Authority.

[486]It should perhaps be mentioned that in the Third Annual Report, 1873-4 (pp. xvii. and 126-35), reports by Miss Octavia Hill and Colonel Lynedoch Gardiner, on the Co-operation of Charity with the Poor Law in Marylebone, are given and commended.

[487]The Liverpool Vestry and various boards of guardians objected to the Poor Law Board being made permanent, as its very existence tended to lessen the sense of responsibility of the local Poor Law authorities (Report of Special Vestry Meeting, Liverpool, inLiverpool Mercury, 27th June 1867).

Back to Index Next