[579]4 Edw. VII. c. 15, sec. 5.
[579]4 Edw. VII. c. 15, sec. 5.
[580]Mr. Davy's Report, in Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1892-3, p. 72.
[580]Mr. Davy's Report, in Twenty-Second Annual Report, 1892-3, p. 72.
[581]Ibid.
[581]Ibid.
[582]Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report, in Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, p. 222.
[582]Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report, in Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, p. 222.
[583]Mr. Kennedy's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, pp. 168-9.
[583]Mr. Kennedy's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, pp. 168-9.
[584]Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted by the Central Authority in 1873 for official circulation.
[584]Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted by the Central Authority in 1873 for official circulation.
[585]Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 26th January 1901 (MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians).
[585]Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 26th January 1901 (MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians).
[586]Circular of 27th April 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. 317-20.
[586]Circular of 27th April 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. 317-20.
[587]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi.
[587]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi.
[588]Twenty-third Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1870-71, p. 374.
[588]Twenty-third Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1870-71, p. 374.
[589]There are few statutory provisions of this period which affect the institutional treatment of children, and these few deal simply with financial questions. It is worth noting, however, that they tend to improve accommodation, as they facilitate increased expenditure, by allowing a larger sum to be raised for building, fitting up, and furnishing Metropolitan District Schools (Poor Law Loans Act 1872, 35 Vic. c. 2, sec. 1), and by allowing the expenses of maintenance in a certified school to be paid up to any limit to be fixed by the Local Government Board; and provide against overcrowding by allowing no repayment from the common poor fund in respect of children in a school in excess of a maximum number fixed for the school by the board. The special provisions for the education of defective children will be considered under the heading "Defectives."
[589]There are few statutory provisions of this period which affect the institutional treatment of children, and these few deal simply with financial questions. It is worth noting, however, that they tend to improve accommodation, as they facilitate increased expenditure, by allowing a larger sum to be raised for building, fitting up, and furnishing Metropolitan District Schools (Poor Law Loans Act 1872, 35 Vic. c. 2, sec. 1), and by allowing the expenses of maintenance in a certified school to be paid up to any limit to be fixed by the Local Government Board; and provide against overcrowding by allowing no repayment from the common poor fund in respect of children in a school in excess of a maximum number fixed for the school by the board. The special provisions for the education of defective children will be considered under the heading "Defectives."
[590]In his Report for 1898, the inspector of Poor Law schools for the six northern counties describes the changes of the preceding thirty-seven years. In 1871-5 there were seventy-four unions, having considerable numbers of children, which educated them all in schools within the workhouse walls. Four had distinct schools, but on the workhouse premises; and four only had entirely separate schools. In 1898, only one union had workhouse schools for girls and two for boys; three had distinct schools, but on the workhouse premises; with half-a-dozen others with similar arrangements for part of the children, or for the children awaiting transfer only. Elsewhere the children were in entirely separate schools or cottage homes, or removed to certified schools; or in scattered homes or boarded out (Mr. Mozley's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, p. 183).
[590]In his Report for 1898, the inspector of Poor Law schools for the six northern counties describes the changes of the preceding thirty-seven years. In 1871-5 there were seventy-four unions, having considerable numbers of children, which educated them all in schools within the workhouse walls. Four had distinct schools, but on the workhouse premises; and four only had entirely separate schools. In 1898, only one union had workhouse schools for girls and two for boys; three had distinct schools, but on the workhouse premises; with half-a-dozen others with similar arrangements for part of the children, or for the children awaiting transfer only. Elsewhere the children were in entirely separate schools or cottage homes, or removed to certified schools; or in scattered homes or boarded out (Mr. Mozley's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, p. 183).
[591]The last in the published documents seems to be the incidental reference in the Circular of 4th August 1900 as to the aged and deserving poor (Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 18).
[591]The last in the published documents seems to be the incidental reference in the Circular of 4th August 1900 as to the aged and deserving poor (Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 18).
[592]Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871.
[592]Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871.
[593]Hansard, 1st February 1897, vol. 45, p. 904.
[593]Hansard, 1st February 1897, vol. 45, p. 904.
[594]Ibid.2nd June 1899, vol. 72, p. 258. The process of discovery of the evils of these large schools may be interestingly traced in the annual reports of the L.G.B. Inspectors of Poor Law Schools from 1871 to 1895; theReport on the Health of Metropolitan Pauper Schools, by J. H. Bridges, 1890; and Report of the Committee on Poor Law Schools, 1896.
[594]Ibid.2nd June 1899, vol. 72, p. 258. The process of discovery of the evils of these large schools may be interestingly traced in the annual reports of the L.G.B. Inspectors of Poor Law Schools from 1871 to 1895; theReport on the Health of Metropolitan Pauper Schools, by J. H. Bridges, 1890; and Report of the Committee on Poor Law Schools, 1896.
[595]The "cottage homes" required special orders widely differing from those for the "barrack schools";see, for instance, that for the Marston Green Cottage Homes of the Birmingham Union of 8th November 1879.
[595]The "cottage homes" required special orders widely differing from those for the "barrack schools";see, for instance, that for the Marston Green Cottage Homes of the Birmingham Union of 8th November 1879.
[596]Local Government Board to Camberwell Union. The Sheffield "Scattered Homes" were described in Mr. Kennedy's Report, in the Twenty-third Annual Report, 1893-4, p. 138. They were (as "isolated homes") regulated by Special Orders of 4th November 1896, 23rd February 1898, and 7th February 1906.
[596]Local Government Board to Camberwell Union. The Sheffield "Scattered Homes" were described in Mr. Kennedy's Report, in the Twenty-third Annual Report, 1893-4, p. 138. They were (as "isolated homes") regulated by Special Orders of 4th November 1896, 23rd February 1898, and 7th February 1906.
[597]Mr. Hervey's Report, in Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2, p. 80.
[597]Mr. Hervey's Report, in Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2, p. 80.
[598]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi. The policy of placing children out in private venture homes run for profit (the old "farming" system) was not wholly given up. In 1874 the Central Authority decided to "withdraw from the almost nominal supervision" which it had exercised over the private venture seaside homes for children; and to leave these, as certified schools, entirely to the supervision of such boards of guardians as chose to make use of them, the payments being classed as non-resident relief (Circular of May 1874, inLocal Government Chronicle, 23rd May 1874, p. 334). Yet a Special Order of 17th September 1879 regulated the admission of pauper children to the Metropolitan Infirmary for Children, Margate (John Weekly, proprietor). Others of 29th November 1880 and 30th June 1886, did the same for the Downlands Seaside Infirmary for Children, Rottingdean (J. F. Landguist, proprietor). In 1889, the North Surrey School District established a Convalescent Home of its own at Broadstairs (Special Orders of 8th February 1889 and 17th October 1891).
[598]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxi. The policy of placing children out in private venture homes run for profit (the old "farming" system) was not wholly given up. In 1874 the Central Authority decided to "withdraw from the almost nominal supervision" which it had exercised over the private venture seaside homes for children; and to leave these, as certified schools, entirely to the supervision of such boards of guardians as chose to make use of them, the payments being classed as non-resident relief (Circular of May 1874, inLocal Government Chronicle, 23rd May 1874, p. 334). Yet a Special Order of 17th September 1879 regulated the admission of pauper children to the Metropolitan Infirmary for Children, Margate (John Weekly, proprietor). Others of 29th November 1880 and 30th June 1886, did the same for the Downlands Seaside Infirmary for Children, Rottingdean (J. F. Landguist, proprietor). In 1889, the North Surrey School District established a Convalescent Home of its own at Broadstairs (Special Orders of 8th February 1889 and 17th October 1891).
[599]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxx. This includes a comparatively small number of sick children in Poor Law infirmaries.
[599]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxx. This includes a comparatively small number of sick children in Poor Law infirmaries.
[600]General Order of 22nd July 1889 (as to Metropolis); and of 10th February 1899 (to all unions). In 1878, indeed, the North Surrey District School had refused to receive children under four, and the Central Authority had declined to interfere (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. i. 1880, p. 178).
[600]General Order of 22nd July 1889 (as to Metropolis); and of 10th February 1899 (to all unions). In 1878, indeed, the North Surrey District School had refused to receive children under four, and the Central Authority had declined to interfere (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. i. 1880, p. 178).
[601]Memorandum, "Duties of Visiting Committees," June 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 122.
[601]Memorandum, "Duties of Visiting Committees," June 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 122.
[602]Ibid.
[602]Ibid.
[603]Circular Letter, 29th January 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 110.
[603]Circular Letter, 29th January 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 110.
[604]June 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 24.
[604]June 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 24.
[605]Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. ii. 1883, p. 258.
[605]Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. ii. 1883, p. 258.
[606]Ibid.vol. iii. 1888, p. 55;Hansard, 13th March 1883, vol. 277, p. 365.
[606]Ibid.vol. iii. 1888, p. 55;Hansard, 13th March 1883, vol. 277, p. 365.
[607]Circular, "Supply of Books, Newspapers, etc.," 23rd January 1891, in Report of Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, 1895, vol. iii. No. C. 7684, ii. p. 967; Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, p. xc.
[607]Circular, "Supply of Books, Newspapers, etc.," 23rd January 1891, in Report of Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, 1895, vol. iii. No. C. 7684, ii. p. 967; Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, p. xc.
[608]Circular Letter of 29th January 1895, on "Workhouse Administration," in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 110.
[608]Circular Letter of 29th January 1895, on "Workhouse Administration," in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 110.
[609]Local Government Chronicle, 18th August 1900, p. 841.
[609]Local Government Chronicle, 18th August 1900, p. 841.
[610]Ibid.14th June 1902, p. 614.
[610]Ibid.14th June 1902, p. 614.
[611]Mr. Jenner Fust's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 147.
[611]Mr. Jenner Fust's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 147.
[612]Local Government Chronicle, 22nd June 1878, p. 489.
[612]Local Government Chronicle, 22nd June 1878, p. 489.
[613]Hansard, 6th September 1886, vol. 308, p. 1316.
[613]Hansard, 6th September 1886, vol. 308, p. 1316.
[614]Local Government Chronicle, 2nd July 1904, p. 707.
[614]Local Government Chronicle, 2nd July 1904, p. 707.
[615]Ibid.8th November 1902, p. 1126.
[615]Ibid.8th November 1902, p. 1126.
[616]Hansard, 21st June 1888, vol. 327, pp. 809-10;Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol ii. 1883, p. 139.
[616]Hansard, 21st June 1888, vol. 327, pp. 809-10;Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol ii. 1883, p. 139.
[617]We ought perhaps to add that the Central Authority is found putting pressure on boards of guardians who refuse to make any adequate provision for their children. In 1898 it is reported that, because the Darlington Board of Guardians refused to make such provision, the Central Authority had refused to sanction any alteration of the workhouse whatsoever until such provision had been made (Local Government Chronicle, 19th February 1898, p. 175).The 21,526 workhouse children appear to be made up of: (a) infants under three; (b) children between three and fourteen, scattered in groups of a dozen to as many as seventy in the workhouses of the unions having no separate schools of their own (in the York Workhouse there are usually about seventy children); and (c) children temporarily in the workhouse on their way to separate schools, boarding-out, being apprenticed, etc. In another classification they are: (a) the newly-born infants of the women in the lying-in ward; (b) children between three and fourteen, who are orphans or deserted; (c) children of indoor paupers, who are either (i.) permanent residents; or (ii.) "ins-and-outs." We cannot find any expression of policy of the Central Authority with regard to any of these classes. In the Metropolis, it should be said, provision has been made for the relegation to special institutions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, not only of children suffering from ophthalmia, etc., but also of children temporarily remitted to the care of the guardians by the police ("remand children"), who had heretofore been sent to the workhouses (Circulars of 19th January and 5th April 1897, and General Order of 2nd April 1897, Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, pp. 8-9). We do not gather that any corresponding provision has been made for such children outside the Metropolis.
[617]We ought perhaps to add that the Central Authority is found putting pressure on boards of guardians who refuse to make any adequate provision for their children. In 1898 it is reported that, because the Darlington Board of Guardians refused to make such provision, the Central Authority had refused to sanction any alteration of the workhouse whatsoever until such provision had been made (Local Government Chronicle, 19th February 1898, p. 175).
The 21,526 workhouse children appear to be made up of: (a) infants under three; (b) children between three and fourteen, scattered in groups of a dozen to as many as seventy in the workhouses of the unions having no separate schools of their own (in the York Workhouse there are usually about seventy children); and (c) children temporarily in the workhouse on their way to separate schools, boarding-out, being apprenticed, etc. In another classification they are: (a) the newly-born infants of the women in the lying-in ward; (b) children between three and fourteen, who are orphans or deserted; (c) children of indoor paupers, who are either (i.) permanent residents; or (ii.) "ins-and-outs." We cannot find any expression of policy of the Central Authority with regard to any of these classes. In the Metropolis, it should be said, provision has been made for the relegation to special institutions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, not only of children suffering from ophthalmia, etc., but also of children temporarily remitted to the care of the guardians by the police ("remand children"), who had heretofore been sent to the workhouses (Circulars of 19th January and 5th April 1897, and General Order of 2nd April 1897, Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, pp. 8-9). We do not gather that any corresponding provision has been made for such children outside the Metropolis.
[618]Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report in the Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2, p. 91.
[618]Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report in the Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2, p. 91.
[619]There was not much pretence of technical instruction in the earlier Orders. What was aimed at was putting the children to work, chosen for its utility, not for its instructiveness (i.e.digging rather than gardening, mending the shoes of the establishment rather than learning the art of shoemaking). In the Special Order to the Walsall and West Bromwich School District of 1st July 1871, it was laid down that the children might be employed (under certain circumstances, wholly employed) "upon works of industry." In an amending Special Order of 20th July 1893, the age was raised, but the phrase was retained.
[619]There was not much pretence of technical instruction in the earlier Orders. What was aimed at was putting the children to work, chosen for its utility, not for its instructiveness (i.e.digging rather than gardening, mending the shoes of the establishment rather than learning the art of shoemaking). In the Special Order to the Walsall and West Bromwich School District of 1st July 1871, it was laid down that the children might be employed (under certain circumstances, wholly employed) "upon works of industry." In an amending Special Order of 20th July 1893, the age was raised, but the phrase was retained.
[620]Order of 30th January 1897 in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, pp. 5-8;seefor its effect Thirty-third Annual Report, 1903-4, p. 256.
[620]Order of 30th January 1897 in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, pp. 5-8;seefor its effect Thirty-third Annual Report, 1903-4, p. 256.
[621]General Order "prescribing attendance" as regards workhouse schools, 30th October 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 204.
[621]General Order "prescribing attendance" as regards workhouse schools, 30th October 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 204.
[622]Circular Letter, 1st February 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 5.
[622]Circular Letter, 1st February 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 5.
[623]Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. i. 1880, p. 224;Local Government Chronicle, 30th January 1904, p. 113.
[623]Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. i. 1880, p. 224;Local Government Chronicle, 30th January 1904, p. 113.
[624]By a General Order of 20th May 1881, corporal punishment is absolutely forbidden in Poor Law Schools as regards "any female child" of any age. This rule has not yet been made by the Board of Education for the schools attended by non-paupers nor by most local education authorities.
[624]By a General Order of 20th May 1881, corporal punishment is absolutely forbidden in Poor Law Schools as regards "any female child" of any age. This rule has not yet been made by the Board of Education for the schools attended by non-paupers nor by most local education authorities.
[625]Thirty-third Annual Report, 1903-4, p. 256.
[625]Thirty-third Annual Report, 1903-4, p. 256.
[626]Circular Letter of 4th August 1900, on Aged Deserving Poor, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1901, p. 18.
[626]Circular Letter of 4th August 1900, on Aged Deserving Poor, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1901, p. 18.
[627]Hansard, 8th May 1894, vol. 24, p. 598.
[627]Hansard, 8th May 1894, vol. 24, p. 598.
[628]10th September 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, pp. 193-200.
[628]10th September 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, pp. 193-200.
[629]Macmorran and Lushington'sPoor Law Orders, second edition, 1905, p. 1331.
[629]Macmorran and Lushington'sPoor Law Orders, second edition, 1905, p. 1331.
[630]Local Government Chronicle, 16th August 1902, p. 825.
[630]Local Government Chronicle, 16th August 1902, p. 825.
[631]Ibid.27th April 1889, p. 338;Hansard, 2nd July 1897, vol. 50, p. 966;Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. ii. 1883, p. 94. On the other hand, a contrary decision seems to have been given in 1885 (ibid.vol. iii. 1888, p. 187).
[631]Ibid.27th April 1889, p. 338;Hansard, 2nd July 1897, vol. 50, p. 966;Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. ii. 1883, p. 94. On the other hand, a contrary decision seems to have been given in 1885 (ibid.vol. iii. 1888, p. 187).
[632]Boarding out without the Union Order, 1889, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, p. 49. The "within the Union Order" contains some modifications for the case where there is no committee.
[632]Boarding out without the Union Order, 1889, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, p. 49. The "within the Union Order" contains some modifications for the case where there is no committee.
[633]Circular Letter, 9th December 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. 328.
[633]Circular Letter, 9th December 1905, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. 328.
[634]Memorandum of the Local Government Board, June 1900. SeeLocal Government Law and Legislation, by W. H. Dumsday, 1900, p. 126.
[634]Memorandum of the Local Government Board, June 1900. SeeLocal Government Law and Legislation, by W. H. Dumsday, 1900, p. 126.
[635]Local Government Chronicle, 31st October 1903, p. 1070.
[635]Local Government Chronicle, 31st October 1903, p. 1070.
[636]Memorandum of the Local Government Board, June 1900,Local Government Law and Legislation, by W. H. Dumsday, 1900, p. 126.
[636]Memorandum of the Local Government Board, June 1900,Local Government Law and Legislation, by W. H. Dumsday, 1900, p. 126.
[637]Local Government Chronicle, 12th March 1904, p. 290.
[637]Local Government Chronicle, 12th March 1904, p. 290.
[638]The rate of 1s. and one loaf for the support per week of each child on outdoor relief was deliberately sanctioned, in 1869, by a Conference of Metropolitan Guardians, presided over by Mr. Corbett (Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted for official circulation in 1873 by the Central Authority). The dividing line between children merely on this outdoor relief, and those "boarded out" at 4s. or 5s. per week, it must be remembered, is not kinship, but whether or not the person with whom the child lives is legally liable for its maintenance. Thus, the policy of the Central Authority has been that children living with a stepfather and stepmother, with a widower stepfather, with a widowed stepmother, or even with a brother, a sister, an uncle, or an aunt (none of whom is legally liable for their maintenance) require all this elaborate supervision and protection; whereas if the children live with their own mother and father, with their widowed mother, with their widower father, with any or all of their grandparents, or exposed to the tender mercies of a father and stepmother, no such supervision and protection is insisted on. But although this is the rule, we are informed that the Central Authority, in practice, now makes no difficulty, if applied to, in sanctioning the transfer of children living with grandparents, uncles and aunts, or brothers and sisters, from the category of ordinary outdoor relief to the more regulated and more richly endowed category of boarding-out. It still objects in the case of parents (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. iii. 1888, p. 187;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 78).
[638]The rate of 1s. and one loaf for the support per week of each child on outdoor relief was deliberately sanctioned, in 1869, by a Conference of Metropolitan Guardians, presided over by Mr. Corbett (Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871, as reprinted for official circulation in 1873 by the Central Authority). The dividing line between children merely on this outdoor relief, and those "boarded out" at 4s. or 5s. per week, it must be remembered, is not kinship, but whether or not the person with whom the child lives is legally liable for its maintenance. Thus, the policy of the Central Authority has been that children living with a stepfather and stepmother, with a widower stepfather, with a widowed stepmother, or even with a brother, a sister, an uncle, or an aunt (none of whom is legally liable for their maintenance) require all this elaborate supervision and protection; whereas if the children live with their own mother and father, with their widowed mother, with their widower father, with any or all of their grandparents, or exposed to the tender mercies of a father and stepmother, no such supervision and protection is insisted on. But although this is the rule, we are informed that the Central Authority, in practice, now makes no difficulty, if applied to, in sanctioning the transfer of children living with grandparents, uncles and aunts, or brothers and sisters, from the category of ordinary outdoor relief to the more regulated and more richly endowed category of boarding-out. It still objects in the case of parents (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. iii. 1888, p. 187;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 78).
[639]Hansard, 8th August 1898, vol. 54, p. 576.
[639]Hansard, 8th August 1898, vol. 54, p. 576.
[640]Circular Letter, 29th May 1889, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, pp. 36-41.
[640]Circular Letter, 29th May 1889, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, pp. 36-41.
[641]Mr. Ritchie, President of the Local Government Board,Hansard, 4th July 1887, vol. 316, pp. 1598-9.
[641]Mr. Ritchie, President of the Local Government Board,Hansard, 4th July 1887, vol. 316, pp. 1598-9.
[642]Circular Letter, 29th May 1884, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, p. 44.
[642]Circular Letter, 29th May 1884, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, p. 44.
[643]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxii.
[643]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. cxxxii.
[644]Circular on "Outfits for Children sent to Service," 14th July 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 26.
[644]Circular on "Outfits for Children sent to Service," 14th July 1897, in Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, p. 26.
[645]Local Government Chronicle, 18th October 1902, p. 1051.
[645]Local Government Chronicle, 18th October 1902, p. 1051.
[646]Ibid.31st October 1903, p. 1070.
[646]Ibid.31st October 1903, p. 1070.
[647]Local Government Chronicle, 31st January 1903, p. 102.
[647]Local Government Chronicle, 31st January 1903, p. 102.
[648]Ibid.15th October 1904, p. 1072;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 118.
[648]Ibid.15th October 1904, p. 1072;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 118.
[649]Circular Letter of 31st May 1873, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 3-4.
[649]Circular Letter of 31st May 1873, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 3-4.
[650]See ante, p. 17.
[650]See ante, p. 17.
[651]Circular of 2nd March 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 118.
[651]Circular of 2nd March 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 118.
[652]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. cxxx, cxxxi.
[652]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. cxxx, cxxxi.
[653]Omitting children receiving medical relief only; and the casuals and insane (ibid.p. cxxxi).
[653]Omitting children receiving medical relief only; and the casuals and insane (ibid.p. cxxxi).
[654]Hansard, 28th May 1887, vol. 315, p. 857. The policy of the Central Authority was apparently against allowing the guardians to assume parental responsibilities. In 1889 Mr. Ritchie had prepared a Bill "to provide that, on application to the justices, an Order might be made detaining a child already under the care of the guardians or boarded out" (Local Government Chronicle, 23rd March 1889, p. 238), but not extending the duties or responsibilities of the guardians.
[654]Hansard, 28th May 1887, vol. 315, p. 857. The policy of the Central Authority was apparently against allowing the guardians to assume parental responsibilities. In 1889 Mr. Ritchie had prepared a Bill "to provide that, on application to the justices, an Order might be made detaining a child already under the care of the guardians or boarded out" (Local Government Chronicle, 23rd March 1889, p. 238), but not extending the duties or responsibilities of the guardians.
[655]Poor Law Act 1889, 52 & 58 Vic. c. 56. sec. 1.
[655]Poor Law Act 1889, 52 & 58 Vic. c. 56. sec. 1.
[656]Circular of 28th September 1899, in Twenty-ninth Annual Report 1889-1900, p. 48.
[656]Circular of 28th September 1899, in Twenty-ninth Annual Report 1889-1900, p. 48.
[657]Custody of Children Act, 54 Vic. c. 3, secs. 3, 4.
[657]Custody of Children Act, 54 Vic. c. 3, secs. 3, 4.
[658]Poor Law Act, 1899, 62 & 63 Vic. c. 37, secs. 1-3.
[658]Poor Law Act, 1899, 62 & 63 Vic. c. 37, secs. 1-3.
[659]Thirty-second Annual Report, 1902-3, pp. lxii-lxiii.
[659]Thirty-second Annual Report, 1902-3, pp. lxii-lxiii.
[660]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905 p. 45.
[660]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905 p. 45.
[661]Twenty-second Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, p. lii.
[661]Twenty-second Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, p. lii.
[662]Mr. Longley, indeed, in his Report on the Administration of Outdoor Relief in the Metropolis, seems to allude to the official dictum of the Poor Law Board under Mr. Goschen, in favour of "free medicine to the poorer classes generally." He sternly condemns "any gradual drifting into a system of medical State charity," and deprecates the fact that this tendency "has received higher sanction than that of the prevalent belief of the poor, or even of the practice of Boards of Guardians" (Third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1873-4, p. 161).
[662]Mr. Longley, indeed, in his Report on the Administration of Outdoor Relief in the Metropolis, seems to allude to the official dictum of the Poor Law Board under Mr. Goschen, in favour of "free medicine to the poorer classes generally." He sternly condemns "any gradual drifting into a system of medical State charity," and deprecates the fact that this tendency "has received higher sanction than that of the prevalent belief of the poor, or even of the practice of Boards of Guardians" (Third Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1873-4, p. 161).
[663]"The dispensary system should be regarded, in common with every improved form of out-relief, not as a final object of Poor Law administration, but merely as a means of administering with greater efficiency that legal relief which, as I have attempted to show elsewhere, is most safely and effectually given in the form of indoor relief. It would, of course, be idle, and worse than idle, to stifle all attempts to reform the administration of out-relief, on the ground that it is desirable, and may, at some remote period, be possible to abolish, or at least greatly to curtail it; and no reform of the practice of relief was probably more urgently needed, or has proved more effectual, than that now under consideration. It must not, however, be forgotten that side by side with Poor Law dispensaries, has grown up, also under the sanction of the Metropolitan Poor Act, a system ... which by encouraging and affording special facilities for the grant of indoor relief to sick paupers, must, if the policy of the Act be unflinchingly carried out, eventually tend ... to the gradual abolition of out-relief to the sick, other than those incapable of removal from their homes. If this be so, Poor Law dispensaries ... must ultimately be found to have had for the most part a merely temporary place in the system of relief in London.... The character of permanence should not be hastily affixed to the system which they represent" (Mr. Longley's Report on Indoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, pp. 41-42). In spite of this criticism, the Central Authority continued to sanction Poor Law dispensaries. Elaborate institutions on the London plan were established in other unions under the general powers of the Act of 1834;see, for instance, the Special Order of 9th June 1873, to Portsea Island Union; those of 4th March and 28th August 1880, to Birmingham; those of 30th November 1885, and 9th January 1895, to Plymouth.
[663]"The dispensary system should be regarded, in common with every improved form of out-relief, not as a final object of Poor Law administration, but merely as a means of administering with greater efficiency that legal relief which, as I have attempted to show elsewhere, is most safely and effectually given in the form of indoor relief. It would, of course, be idle, and worse than idle, to stifle all attempts to reform the administration of out-relief, on the ground that it is desirable, and may, at some remote period, be possible to abolish, or at least greatly to curtail it; and no reform of the practice of relief was probably more urgently needed, or has proved more effectual, than that now under consideration. It must not, however, be forgotten that side by side with Poor Law dispensaries, has grown up, also under the sanction of the Metropolitan Poor Act, a system ... which by encouraging and affording special facilities for the grant of indoor relief to sick paupers, must, if the policy of the Act be unflinchingly carried out, eventually tend ... to the gradual abolition of out-relief to the sick, other than those incapable of removal from their homes. If this be so, Poor Law dispensaries ... must ultimately be found to have had for the most part a merely temporary place in the system of relief in London.... The character of permanence should not be hastily affixed to the system which they represent" (Mr. Longley's Report on Indoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, pp. 41-42). In spite of this criticism, the Central Authority continued to sanction Poor Law dispensaries. Elaborate institutions on the London plan were established in other unions under the general powers of the Act of 1834;see, for instance, the Special Order of 9th June 1873, to Portsea Island Union; those of 4th March and 28th August 1880, to Birmingham; those of 30th November 1885, and 9th January 1895, to Plymouth.
[664]Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, p. xxi.
[664]Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, p. xxi.
[665]Seethe statistics in Twenty-second Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, p. xxiv.
[665]Seethe statistics in Twenty-second Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, p. xxiv.
[666]Circular of 2nd December 1871; in First Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1871-2, p. 67.
[666]Circular of 2nd December 1871; in First Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1871-2, p. 67.
[667]Mr. Salt, as Secretary of the Local Government Board, on Disqualification by Medical Relief Bill,Hansard, 11th December 1878, vol. 243, p. 630. In 1876 the disqualification had been explicitly re-enacted in the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act (39 & 40 Vic. c. 61, sec. 14), promoted by the Central Authority itself, whose Parliamentary representatives continued for years to resist all proposals for its abolition or attenuation. In 1883 it was incidentally undermined by maintenance and treatment in the infectious diseases hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board being declared not to be parochial relief (Diseases Prevention Act 1883, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 35). Not until 1885 did the Central Authority consent to its abolition, as regards persons in receipt of medical relief only, in the Medical Relief Disqualification Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vic. c. 46). Even then the "stigma of pauperism" was preserved, by omitting to repeal sec. 14 of the 1876 Act above cited, so that persons in receipt of medical relief only are still nominally disqualified from voting at an election of a Poor Law guardian, "or in the election to an office under the provisions of any statute."
[667]Mr. Salt, as Secretary of the Local Government Board, on Disqualification by Medical Relief Bill,Hansard, 11th December 1878, vol. 243, p. 630. In 1876 the disqualification had been explicitly re-enacted in the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act (39 & 40 Vic. c. 61, sec. 14), promoted by the Central Authority itself, whose Parliamentary representatives continued for years to resist all proposals for its abolition or attenuation. In 1883 it was incidentally undermined by maintenance and treatment in the infectious diseases hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board being declared not to be parochial relief (Diseases Prevention Act 1883, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 35). Not until 1885 did the Central Authority consent to its abolition, as regards persons in receipt of medical relief only, in the Medical Relief Disqualification Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vic. c. 46). Even then the "stigma of pauperism" was preserved, by omitting to repeal sec. 14 of the 1876 Act above cited, so that persons in receipt of medical relief only are still nominally disqualified from voting at an election of a Poor Law guardian, "or in the election to an office under the provisions of any statute."
[668]Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law Conference, 12th May 1877; in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 55.
[668]Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law Conference, 12th May 1877; in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 55.
[669]Ibid.p. 54.
[669]Ibid.p. 54.
[670]Local Government Board decision, inLocal Government Chronicle, 11th June 1904, p. 635.
[670]Local Government Board decision, inLocal Government Chronicle, 11th June 1904, p. 635.
[671]Circular of 23rd May 1879, in Ninth Annual Report, 1879-80, p. 92.
[671]Circular of 23rd May 1879, in Ninth Annual Report, 1879-80, p. 92.
[672]Hansard, 13th June 1876, vol. 229, p. 1780 (in Committee on Poor Law Amendment Bill).
[672]Hansard, 13th June 1876, vol. 229, p. 1780 (in Committee on Poor Law Amendment Bill).
[673]Local Government Board to Dr. Mortimer Glanville (LancetMemorial on Poor Law Medical Relief Reform), 12th November 1878; in Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, pp. 91-2. In spite of this official answer, we may infer a certain internal conflict of policy with regard to these salaried outdoor Poor Law nurses. Though the Central Authority expressed itself as "desirous of encouraging" the experiment, we cannot find that it issued the Order, without which no board of guardians could create a new salaried office, for nearly fourteen years. The District Nurses Order, which was merely permissive, and which, therefore, could not have been delayed merely because there were, in 1878, not enough trained nurses to supply every union in the Kingdom, was not issued until 27th January 1892 (Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, pp. 12-13). We cannot find that any "paid nurses in the treatment of the poor at their own homes" were sanctioned before that date. Moreover, even then, it is difficult to feel sure that the Central Authority was still, to use its words of 1878, "desirous of encouraging this arrangement as much as possible." In sending the Order to boards of guardians, it accompanied it by a circular, which can scarcely be deemed encouraging. It was of opinion that "it can only be under exceptional circumstances that a sick pauper, whose illness is of such a character as to require that the services of a nurse should be provided by the guardians, can, with propriety, be relieved at home. At the same time it appears ... that where circumstances render it desirable the nurses employed in such attendance should be duly appointed officers of the guardians, having recognised qualifications for the position, and being subject in the performance of their duties to the control of the guardians, and the Board have consequently decided to empower boards of guardians to appoint such officers" (Circular of 1st February 1892; in Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, p. 9). Fifteen more years have elapsed; but we do not gather that the experiment, which the Central Authority in 1878 was desirous of encouraging, has been very strenuously pressed by the inspectors, or the power made publicly known. The result is that we cannot find that it has yet taken shape even to the extent of as many as a dozen salaried Poor Law nurses for the outdoor sick from one end of the Kingdom to the other.
[673]Local Government Board to Dr. Mortimer Glanville (LancetMemorial on Poor Law Medical Relief Reform), 12th November 1878; in Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, pp. 91-2. In spite of this official answer, we may infer a certain internal conflict of policy with regard to these salaried outdoor Poor Law nurses. Though the Central Authority expressed itself as "desirous of encouraging" the experiment, we cannot find that it issued the Order, without which no board of guardians could create a new salaried office, for nearly fourteen years. The District Nurses Order, which was merely permissive, and which, therefore, could not have been delayed merely because there were, in 1878, not enough trained nurses to supply every union in the Kingdom, was not issued until 27th January 1892 (Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, pp. 12-13). We cannot find that any "paid nurses in the treatment of the poor at their own homes" were sanctioned before that date. Moreover, even then, it is difficult to feel sure that the Central Authority was still, to use its words of 1878, "desirous of encouraging this arrangement as much as possible." In sending the Order to boards of guardians, it accompanied it by a circular, which can scarcely be deemed encouraging. It was of opinion that "it can only be under exceptional circumstances that a sick pauper, whose illness is of such a character as to require that the services of a nurse should be provided by the guardians, can, with propriety, be relieved at home. At the same time it appears ... that where circumstances render it desirable the nurses employed in such attendance should be duly appointed officers of the guardians, having recognised qualifications for the position, and being subject in the performance of their duties to the control of the guardians, and the Board have consequently decided to empower boards of guardians to appoint such officers" (Circular of 1st February 1892; in Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, p. 9). Fifteen more years have elapsed; but we do not gather that the experiment, which the Central Authority in 1878 was desirous of encouraging, has been very strenuously pressed by the inspectors, or the power made publicly known. The result is that we cannot find that it has yet taken shape even to the extent of as many as a dozen salaried Poor Law nurses for the outdoor sick from one end of the Kingdom to the other.
[674]"The sick" were held to include not only acute cases, but also cases of "chronic disease requiring regular medical treatment and trained nursing" (and also venereal and skin diseases, including the itch). (Local Government Board to Poplar Union, October 1871; MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 6th October 1871).
[674]"The sick" were held to include not only acute cases, but also cases of "chronic disease requiring regular medical treatment and trained nursing" (and also venereal and skin diseases, including the itch). (Local Government Board to Poplar Union, October 1871; MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 6th October 1871).
[675]Local Government Board to Dr. Mortimer Glanville (LancetMemorial on Poor Law Medical Relief Reform), 12th November 1878; in Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, p. 91.
[675]Local Government Board to Dr. Mortimer Glanville (LancetMemorial on Poor Law Medical Relief Reform), 12th November 1878; in Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, p. 91.
[676]The more old-fashioned guardians failed to keep pace with the Central Authority in its ignoring of the principle of "less eligibility" with regard to the sick;see, for instance,The New Pauper Infirmaries and Casual Wards, by a Lambeth Guardian, 1875, in which the elaborate hospital requirements are objected to as being far too good for paupers. Where the guardians persisted in refusing to provide the elaborate and expensive new infirmary accommodation considered necessary, the Central Authority at last issued a peremptory Order requiring them to submit plans within a month, under penalty of having plans "prepared at the expense of the union" and of being deprived of "the benefit of participation in the Common Poor Fund" (Local Government Board to St. Olave's Union, June 1873; seeLocal Government Chronicle, 5th July 1873, p. 379).
[676]The more old-fashioned guardians failed to keep pace with the Central Authority in its ignoring of the principle of "less eligibility" with regard to the sick;see, for instance,The New Pauper Infirmaries and Casual Wards, by a Lambeth Guardian, 1875, in which the elaborate hospital requirements are objected to as being far too good for paupers. Where the guardians persisted in refusing to provide the elaborate and expensive new infirmary accommodation considered necessary, the Central Authority at last issued a peremptory Order requiring them to submit plans within a month, under penalty of having plans "prepared at the expense of the union" and of being deprived of "the benefit of participation in the Common Poor Fund" (Local Government Board to St. Olave's Union, June 1873; seeLocal Government Chronicle, 5th July 1873, p. 379).
[677]For unions out of London we have to note an extraordinary provision of 1879, proposed by the Central Authority itself. Boards of guardians in rural districts were empowered to transfer any of their buildings (into which only destitute persons could legally be received) from themselves as Poor Law authorities to themselves as public health authorities (in which case the buildings became available, without the stigma of pauperism, for all classes of the population) (Poor Law Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vic. c. 54, sec. 14)). We cannot discover in which cases, if any, this provision was acted upon, and the necessary confirmatory Order issued by the Central Authority; or what difference it made to the buildings.
[677]For unions out of London we have to note an extraordinary provision of 1879, proposed by the Central Authority itself. Boards of guardians in rural districts were empowered to transfer any of their buildings (into which only destitute persons could legally be received) from themselves as Poor Law authorities to themselves as public health authorities (in which case the buildings became available, without the stigma of pauperism, for all classes of the population) (Poor Law Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vic. c. 54, sec. 14)). We cannot discover in which cases, if any, this provision was acted upon, and the necessary confirmatory Order issued by the Central Authority; or what difference it made to the buildings.
[678]This was, in effect, to hold that inability to secure isolation, when isolation was required, amounted to destitution, so far as this kind of medical relief was concerned, just as a man requiring an expensive surgical operation was legally within the definition of destitute for the purpose of the operation if he could not pay the market price of it, even if he had ample food, clothing, and shelter. We cannot discover, however, that this explanation was actually given in an official document. Under it, not merely "a considerable portion of the population," but practically five-sixths of it would, in cases of infectious disease, have to be deemed destitute.
[678]This was, in effect, to hold that inability to secure isolation, when isolation was required, amounted to destitution, so far as this kind of medical relief was concerned, just as a man requiring an expensive surgical operation was legally within the definition of destitute for the purpose of the operation if he could not pay the market price of it, even if he had ample food, clothing, and shelter. We cannot discover, however, that this explanation was actually given in an official document. Under it, not merely "a considerable portion of the population," but practically five-sixths of it would, in cases of infectious disease, have to be deemed destitute.
[679]Order of 10th February 1875, art. 4.
[679]Order of 10th February 1875, art. 4.
[680]Circular of 8th July 1887, in Seventeenth Annual Report, 1887-8, p. 9.
[680]Circular of 8th July 1887, in Seventeenth Annual Report, 1887-8, p. 9.
[681]Circular of 2nd January 1877, in Sixth Annual Report, 1876-7, p. 33.
[681]Circular of 2nd January 1877, in Sixth Annual Report, 1876-7, p. 33.
[682]Poor Law Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vic. c. 54, sec. 15).
[682]Poor Law Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vic. c. 54, sec. 15).
[683]46 & 47 Vic. c. 35.
[683]46 & 47 Vic. c. 35.
[684]The Central Authority was apparently loth to accept the situation. The statute was deliberately made only a temporary one, expiring in a year. But it was annually renewed, and in 1891 the provision was made permanent in the Public Health (London) Act of that year. Meanwhile the Poor Law Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vic. c. 56, sec. 3), had expressly authorised the admission of non-paupers, entitling the guardians to recover the cost from the patients if the guardians chose; but making their expenses, in default of such recoupment, chargeable (as were the expenses of the pauper patients) on the Common Poor Fund. We cannot discover that any attempt was made to recover the cost from the patients; and in 1891 the very idea was abandoned.
[684]The Central Authority was apparently loth to accept the situation. The statute was deliberately made only a temporary one, expiring in a year. But it was annually renewed, and in 1891 the provision was made permanent in the Public Health (London) Act of that year. Meanwhile the Poor Law Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vic. c. 56, sec. 3), had expressly authorised the admission of non-paupers, entitling the guardians to recover the cost from the patients if the guardians chose; but making their expenses, in default of such recoupment, chargeable (as were the expenses of the pauper patients) on the Common Poor Fund. We cannot discover that any attempt was made to recover the cost from the patients; and in 1891 the very idea was abandoned.