Chapter 28

[685]Annual Reports of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, 1889-1906. In 1888, in anticipation of the necessary amendment of the law, the Central Authority authorised the admission of diphtheria cases (Local Government Board to Metropolitan Asylums Board, October 1888;Local Government Chronicle, 27th October 1888, p. 986; Poor Law Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vic. c. 56, sec. 3); Order of 21st October 1889, in Nineteenth Annual Report, 1889-90, p. 96). The boards of guardians outside the Metropolis failed, we believe everywhere, to respond to the invitations of the Central Authority to provide similar accommodation for infectious diseases. In 1876 the inspector was doing his utmost, by special Order of the Central Authority, to induce the Manchester, Salford, Chorlton, and Prestwich Boards of Guardians to unite in establishing out of the poor rates a hospital for infectious diseases, which should admit non-paupers on payment (MS. Minutes, Manchester Board of Guardians, 17th February 1876).

[686]In 1889, for instance, the Central Authority provided that, in cases of sudden or urgent necessity, the medical superintendent or his assistant should admit patients on his own responsibility, without order from the relieving officer (Special Order to Mile End Old Town, 10th October 1889).

[687]Under the Metropolitan Poor Amendment Act 1870, the cost of the maintenance of adult paupers in workhouses and sick asylums, to the extent of 5d. per head per day, was thrown on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. To two-thirds of the Metropolitan unions, including all the poorer ones, this operated as a bribe in favour of indoor (or infirmary) treatment as against domiciliary or dispensary treatment. Mr. Longley wished to go much further. In order practically to compel all the Metropolitan boards of guardians to provide these elaborate and expensive hospitals, he recommended that the whole cost of indoor maintenance of the sick, when in infirmaries separated in position and administration from the ordinary workhouses, should be made a charge on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund (Mr. Longley's Report on Indoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, p. 54).

[688]Memorandum on Nursing in Workhouse Sick Wards, April 1892; in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 114.

[689]Decision of Local Government Board inLocal Government Chronicle, 18th October 1902, p. 1051.

[690]Hansard, 8th February 1867, vol. 185, p. 163;seeante, pp. 120-21.

[691]Metropolitan Poor Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vic. c. 6); Special Order to Central London Sick Asylum District, 13th May 1873.

[692]Special Order to Lambeth, 25th August 1873.

[693]MS. Minutes, Manchester Board of Guardians, 14th August 1879. Some of the inspectors seem to have shared this objection. As late as 1901 we find one reporting that "the admission into our workhouse infirmaries of persons above the pauper class, and not destitute, is, I fear, increasing" (Mr. J. W. Preston's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 97).

[694]Mr. Preston-Thomas's Report, in Twenty-eighth Annual Report, 1898-9, p. 135.

[695]"The curtailment of the stage of convalescence," urged the medical inspector in 1875, on a hesitating board of guardians, "alone rapidly covers any additional outlay that may have been incurred in structural arrangements, whilst the increased chances of recovery to the sick and afflicted are not to be measured by any mere money standard" (Dr. Mouat, medical inspector of Local Government Board, in Report on Infirmary of Newcastle Union; MS. archives, Newcastle Board Of Guardians, 26th November 1875). Already by 1891 the Central Authority is able to inform Parliament that the number of "sick beds" provided in Poor Law institutions throughout the country—irrespective of the mere infirm aged—is no less than 68,420 (House Of Commons, No. 365 of 1891; Twenty-first Annual Report, 1891-2, p. lxxxvi). In 1896 there were 58,551 persons occupying the workhouse wards for the sick, of whom 19,287 were merely aged and infirm, whilst there were in attendance 1961 trained nurses, 1384 paid but untrained nurses (probationers), and 3443 pauper helpers, of whom 1374 were convalescents (Twenty-sixth Annual Report, 1896-7, p. lxvi; House Of Commons, No. 371 of 1896).

[696]Special Orders to West Derby, Liverpool and Toxteth Park, 5th April 1900 and 25th January 1901. In 1888 two other Boards of Guardians were even urged and authorised to combine in the taking over and maintenance of a specialised hospital for a particular class of diseases, and to conduct it as a Poor Law institution with the aid of a small annual subsidy from national funds, on the understanding that all local cases were taken. There was to be no sort of "deterrent" influence. Patients, suffering from these diseases, were to be admitted on the authority of the medical superintendent of the hospital, without there being necessarily any order from the relieving officer; and without any express restriction to the destitute. The well-understood object of this Poor Law institution was, in fact, positively to encourage all persons suffering from the diseases in question to come in and be cured. There was to be no obvious sign that it was a Poor Law institution. It was especially ordered that it should be styled "The Aldershot Lock Hospital" (Special Orders to Farnham and Hartley Wintney Unions, 19th September 1888 and 16th November 1894). This went on for seventeen years, and was given up in 1905 (ibid.30th December 1905).

[697]Special Order to Croydon, Kingston, and Richmond, of 27th December 1904. We gather that this institution has not been established. A similar one exists at Manchester.

[698]By some Revising Barristers under the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vic. c. 46).

[699]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, p. 7. The Poor Law Act 1879 had, in fact, expressly authorised boards of guardians to subscribe to charitable institutions to which paupers might have access. It was held, for instance, that boards of guardians may, if they choose, send their sane adult epileptics to an epileptic colony, and pay the cost of their maintenance there (Local Government Chronicle, 29th October 1904, p. 1123). In 1901, the Central Authority sanctioned the payment of £70 by the Bramley Board of Guardians for a cot in the sanatorium of the Leeds Association for the Cure of Tuberculosis (Local Government Board to Bramley Union, February 1901, inLocal Government Chronicle, 23rd February 1901, p. 184).

[700]In 1903 it sanctioned the expenditure involved in the setting up of Röntgen Ray apparatus in a Poor Law infirmary (Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, p. 10).

[701]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 39.

[702]Hansard, 24th July 1879, vol. 248, p. 1173.

[703]Local Government Board decision, inLocal Government Chronicle, 1st November 1902, p. 1102.

[704]General Order of 8th March 1894, in Twenty-fourth Annual Report, 1894-5, pp. xcix, 4-5.

[705]Circular of 29th January 1895, in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. iii.

[706]Mr. Long in House of Commons (23rd June 1904;Hansard, vol. 136, p. 971).

[707]Circular of 23rd January 1891; Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, p. xc; Report of Royal Commission on Aged Poor, 1895, vol. iii. p. 967, (Cd. 7684 II).

[708]Seethe references to nursing in Circulars of 29th January 1895 and 7th August 1897; and the General Order (Nursing of the Sick in Workhouses) 6th August 1897; Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, pp. 109-110; Twenty-seventh Annual Report, 1897-8, pp. 27-31.

[709]Mr. Hervey's Report, in Thirty-second Annual Report, 1902-3, p. 69. The total cost of Poor Law medical relief in 1904-5 was £518,994 indoor (to which might be added £640,833 for what are now called the "public health purposes" of the greatest of all Poor Law authorities, the Metropolitan Asylums Board); and £268,537 outdoor (Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. 251, 589, 590). This aggregate total of £787,531 (excluding the fever hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board) omits the maintenance of the sick themselves, but includes, however, some items not previously included. For comparative purposes we must take the figure for 1903-4 (£423,554), which includes only doctors' salaries and drugs. This may be compared with the corresponding figure for 1881 of £310,456; for 1871, of £290,249; and for 1840 of £151,781 (Twenty-second Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, 1869-70, p. 227; Eleventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1881-2, p. 237).

[710]Sec. 131 of Public Health Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55).

[711]Sec. 133 ofibid.This had been already included in the Sanitary Act of 1868 (31 & 32 Vic. c. 115, sec. 10).

[712]Circular of 17th August and 12th November 1872, in Second Annual Report, 1872-3, pp. 19-20, 41-52.

[713]See,e.g.the letters of Mr. Hedley, in September 1872, in MS. archives of Newcastle Board of Guardians.

[714]Mr. Bagenal's Report, in Thirty-first Annual Report, 1901-2, p. 139.

[715]Mr. Preston-Thomas's Report, in Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, pp. 471-2.

[716]It seems to have been entirely as an exception that the Rochdale Guardians fitted up what was practically a lunatic asylum in their workhouse, adequately equipped, staffed, and isolated; and took in a number of Lancashire chronic lunatics (Special Order of 13th April 1893; Twenty-third Annual Report, 1893-4, p. xcii).

[717]Lunacy Act, 1890, 53 Vic. c. 5, sec. 26.

[718]Ibid.sec. 25; cf. Lunacy Act 1889, 52 & 53 Vic. c. 41, sec. 22.

[719]Lunacy Act 1890, secs. 20, 21; cf. Lunacy Act 1885, 48 & 49 Vic. c. 52, secs. 2 and 3.

[720]Ibid.sec. 24.

[721]Lunacy Act 1889, sec. 40.

[722]Ibid.sec. 42.

[723]Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, p. xli.

[724]First Annual Report, 1871-2, p. xxix.

[725]Circular Letter, "Metropolitan Asylums for Imbeciles," 12th February 1875, in Fifth Annual Report, 1875-6, p. 3.

[726]Circular Letter, "Age of Children sent to Imbecile Asylums," 24th July 1882, in Twelfth Annual Report, 1882-3, p. 17.

[727]Local Government Board to West Ham, January 1885;Local Government Chronicle, 24th January 1885, p. 77.

[728]Special Order of 21st March 1900 (apparently not published); referred to in Thirtieth Annual Report 1900-1, p. ci.

[729]Thirty-fifth Annual Report, 1905-6, p. clxxi.

[730]Ibid.p. clxx.

[731]Mr. Preston-Thomas's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 122-3.

[732]Circular of 4th August 1900, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 18.

[733]Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. i 1880, p. 53; vol. ii. 1883, p. 281; vol. iii. 1888, p. 102.

[734]Ibid.vol. iii. 1888, p. 101.

[735]Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act 1893 (56 and 57 Vic. c. 42).

[736]Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act 1899 (62 and 63 Vic. c. 32).

[737]Special Order of 4th March 1903; Thirty-third Annual Report, 1903-4, p. ci.

[738]Mr. Courtenay Boyle's Report, in Eighth Annual Report, 1878-9, p. 120.

[739]Local Government Chronicle, 29th November 1902, p. 1203.

[740]Ibid.6th December 1902, p. 1225.

[741]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, p. 14.

[742]Report on the Administration of Outdoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 136-209.

[743]"One of the chief defects," he said, "in the present administration of the law in respect of the disabled class, and especially of that large section of it which consists of the aged and infirm ... is its failure to relieve the rates from the burden of the maintenance of paupers whose relatives, whether legally liable or not, are able to contribute to their support. It is, I believe, within the experience of many boards of guardians, that while there are persons who, even when in prosperous circumstances, readily permit their aged relatives to receive out-relief, an offer of indoor relief is frequently found to put pressure upon them to rescue themselves, if not their relatives, from the discredit incident to the residence of the latter in a workhouse" (Ibid.p. 188). Another inspector expressly reported that he urged guardians with regard to the aged "to apply the workhouse testin order to put a pressure on relatives who are not legally liable" (Mr. Culley's Report in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 76). So again, in 1875, Mr. Longley argued that the "deterrent discipline" of the workhouse was "the keystone of an efficient system of indoor relief," not merely for the able-bodied, but also for the aged ("directly on the able-bodied, and more remotely upon the disabled class of paupers," the term he always used for the aged) (Report on Indoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, p. 47). It may, however, be noted that Mr. Longley never pretended that this was the policy of the Report of 1834, or of the Act of 1834. To him it was "a further and special development... of the principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act" (Ibid.p. 41).

[744]Mr. Longley's Report in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 144.

[745]Ibid.

[746]We ought, perhaps, to mention that, already in January 1895, under Sir Henry Fowler's presidency, we find the Central Authority writing to a board of guardians, to bespeak greater consideration for the aged and infirm, who needed outdoor relief. The Bradford Guardians had been in the habit of requiring their outdoor paupers to come every week to the workhouse to receive their doles. The Central Authority, far from deprecating this outdoor relief, spontaneously pointed out that the system involved very long walks for many infirm people, and suggested that the guardians should institute four local pay stations (Local Government Board to Bradford Union, 8th January 1895; in MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians).

[747]Circular of 11th July 1896; in Twenty-sixth Annual Report, 1896-7, pp. 8-9. No mention is made of this Circular in the Annual Report itself.

[748]Ibid.p. 9. In September 1896, under Mr. Chaplin's presidency, the Central Authority "saw no objection" to a proposal of the Poplar Guardians to "board out" an aged married couple in a country cottage at 12s. a week, and added that its sanction was not required, if the case fell within "exception 2 to art. 4" of the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order. It was simply "non-resident relief." But the Central Authority declared that it was impossible for such relief to be made chargeable on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, as "boarding-out" was outdoor relief (Local Government Board to Poplar Union, 25th September 1896; MS. archives, Poplar Board of Guardians). The expenses of "boarded-out" children had been placed upon the fund by statute, the Metropolitan Poor Amendment Act 1869.

[749]Some of them hardly concealed their dismay. "In some instances," says Mr. Davy, "where Guardians have been for years endeavouring with patient care to administer the Poor Law strictly ... the opinion of the [Local Government] Board with reference to outdoor relief to certain classes of paupers, has been the cause of some change, if not of opinion, at all events of practice, with the result that the amount paid weekly as outdoor relief has increased largely.... This has been notably the case in the Faversham Union.... During the last six months the expenditure has increased about 25 per cent.... In some other Unions ... the effect of the Circular has been still more marked, for the recommendation that adequate relief should be given has been made the occasion for increased grants of outdoor relief all round, the word "adequate" being taken to refer to the amount of money given only.... It cannot be too strongly insisted that adequate relief means not only that the relief should be sufficient for the wants of the pauper, but that it should be the most suitable form of relief for each particular case." Mr. Davy went on to intimate pretty plainly that, in his view, normally and typically, "the only adequate form of relief is an offer for the workhouse" (Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 87-9).

[750]To Boards of Guardians "outside the Metropolis" only.

[751]It seems, at any rate, not to have affected their practice of compiling statistical tables in which the Unions were contrasted one with another, according to the percentage of the paupers on outdoor relief—irrespective, as we have already observed, of the relative proportions of the aged, among their several populations; and (as must now be added) of the policy of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, which the Central Authority had promulgated.

[752]Circular of 4th August 1900; in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 18-19. This momentous new departure is not referred to in the Annual Report itself. Returns published in the previous year had shown that of the 286,929 paupers over sixty-five on 1st January 1900, only 74,597 were indoor paupers, and of these, only 40,809 were in the workhouses as distinguished from infirmaries, etc. The other 212,332 had outdoor relief. Outside the Metropolis, indeed, eight out of every ten had outdoor relief; one was in the infirmary, and there was only one in the workhouse (Twenty-ninth Annual Report, 1899-1900, p. lvii).

[753]Mr. Bagenal's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 154.

[754]Mr. Wethered's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 133.

[755]Mr. Baldwyn Fleming's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 112-113.

[756]Mr. Bagenal's Report, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 154.

[757]Local Government Board to Bradford Union, 10th January 1901; Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 26th January 1901; in MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians.

[758]It was not so much that the "offer of the House" increased the aggregate population of the workhouses. Between 1871 and 1891, this only rose, outside the Metropolis, from 131,334 to 139,736. (In the Metropolis, owing to the development of the infirmaries into general hospitals, and the working of the Common Poor Fund, the rise was more considerable, viz. from 36,739 to 58,482). But the workhouse population gradually changed in character, the able-bodied being replaced by the aged. On 1st January 1900, there were found to be, in the workhouses themselves, no fewer than 40,809 persons over sixty-five, and in the workhouse infirmaries, etc., 33,788 more, making a total over sixty-five of 74,597; being more than 38 per cent of the total inmates (Twenty-ninth Annual Report, 1899-1900, p. lvii).

[759]"Able-bodied people are now scarcely at all found in them during the greater part of the year.... Those who enjoy the advantages of these institutions are almost solely such as may fittingly receive them, viz. the aged and infirm, the destitute sick and children. Workhouses are now asylums and infirmaries" (Dr. E. Smith, Medical Officer to the Poor Law Board; in Twentieth Annual Report, 1867-8, p. 43).

[760]Office Minute of 1873.

[761]"Directly on the able-bodied, and more remotely, upon the disabled class of paupers," the term he always used for the aged (Report on Indoor Relief in the Metropolis, in Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, p. 47).

[762]Seeante, pp. 54-82.

[763]Special Order of 18th April 1892; Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, p. lxxix. The only item of policy as regards the aged in the workhouse, to be noted between 1871 and 1892, seems to be the insistence by Parliament in 1876 that married couples (who if both persons were over sixty could not since 1847 be made to live separately) might, if the guardians chose to allow it, live together if either person were over sixty, infirm, aged, or disabled (39 and 40 Vic. c. 61, sec. 10). This was communicated to the boards of guardians in 1885 (Circular of 3rd November 1885, in Fifteenth Annual Report, 1885-6, p. 23.) No great attempt was made to get the guardians to provide the necessary separate accommodation, or to make it decently habitable. Thus, at Poplar, there were no rooms for married couples until 1884, and then they were left for fifteen months without any means by which they could be warmed. At last the Central Authority called attention to it (Local Government Board to Poplar Union, 27th May 1886; MS. Minutes, Poplar Board of Guardians, 4th June 1886). It should be noted, too, that it was held that newspapers and periodicals might be provided (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. iii. 1888, p. 134); and the employment of old men in three workhouses in northern counties in teazing hair, which was excessively distasteful to them, and liable to be injurious to their health, was discontinued at the instance of the inspector (Twentieth Annual Report, 1890-1, pp. 245-6).

[764]It is not clear from the published documents at what date, or in what unions, the Central Authority had first allowed tobacco. In 1880, it decided that it could not legally be given to workhouse inmates (not being sick), if it had not been specially ordered by the medical officer under arts. 107 and 108 of the General Consolidated Order of 1847 (Selections from the Correspondence of the Local Government Board, vol. ii. pp. 3, 72). Yet, by 1885, at any rate, the allowance of tobacco or snuff to non-able-bodied paupers, or to such as were "employed upon work of a hazardous or specially disagreeable character," with permission to smoke in such room as the guardians might determine, had been exceptionally granted in particular cases;see, for instance, Special Order to Carlisle of 22nd June 1885, not published in the Annual Report.

[765]"It is the invariable practice," said Mr. Ritchie approvingly, "to provide for the aged paupers a better diet than that for the other classes" (Mr. Ritchie in House of Commons, 6th May 1892;Hansard, vol. 4, p. 277).

[766]Local Government Board to Bourne Union, August 1892 (Local Government Chronicle, 13th August 1892, p. 678); Local Government Board to Caistor Union, September 1892 (Ibid.8th October 1892, p. 859).

[767]General Order of 3rd November 1892: Circular of 9th November 1892; Twenty-second Annual Report, 1892-3, pp. lxxxv, 35-6.

[768]General Order of 8th March 1894; Twenty-fourth Annual Report, 1894-5, pp. xcix, 4-5.

[769]Special Order to Gateshead, 15th February 1896;see alsothe "Specimen Order" given in Macmorran and Lushington'sPoor Law Orders, second edition, 1905, p. 1061.

[770]Circular on Workhouse Administration of 29th January 1895; Memorandum on Visiting Committees of June 1895; Circular on Classification in Workhouses of 31st July 1896; Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, pp. lxxxv, 107-112, 121-3; Twenty-sixth Annual Report, 1896-7, pp. lxxxviii-lxxxix, 9-10.

[771]Memorandum on the Duties of Visiting Committees, June 1895; in Twenty-fifth Annual Report, 1895-6, p. 122.

[772]Sunday morning, and one day a month, was held to be not sufficient outing. "In the case of aged inmates of respectable character," said Mr. Chaplin "leave of absence might well be allowed on weekdays more frequently than is now the case" [at Old Gravel Lane Workhouse] (Hansard, 23rd May 1898, vol. lviii, p. 326).

[773]Circular of 4th August 1900, in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, p. 19.

[774]Ibid.p. 20. Nor was this merely a formal expression. We see, in the next few years, the Central Authority cordially sanctioning the provision, at no small extra expense in capital and annual maintenance, of new old people's wards in some unions, of specialised old men's and old women's homes in others; even to the extent of permitting (as at Woolwich) the location of the most respectable and best conducted of the aged in a comfortable private mansion conducted with the minimum of rules, and without outward sign of pauperism.

[775]See, for instance, Local Government Board to Bradford Union, 10th January 1901, in MS. archives, Bradford Board of Guardians. There were then, in the Bradford workhouse, twenty aged paupers of the first class, and seventeen of the second class. Both these day wards had cushioned arm-chairs, lockers with keys for each inmate, carpets on the floor, curtains to the windows, and were made comfortable with cushions, coloured table-cloths, pictures, and ornaments. The inmates had special dormitories (Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 26th January 1901). The General Consolidated Order of 1847 was still nominally in force.

[776]Circular of 11th October 1900; Workhouse Regulations (Dietaries and Accounts) Order, 1900; in Thirtieth Annual Report, 1900-1, pp. 65-6. But the Central Authority struck at afternoon tea! The St. George's, Hanover Square, Guardians were informed that it was "not prepared to assent to the proposal of the guardians for the infirm men, and all men over the age of sixty-five years to have half a pint of tea daily at 3.30 P.M., between the mid-day and evening meals" (Local Government Board to St. George's, Hanover Square, November 1900; seeLocal Government Chronicle, 17th November 1900, p. 1147).

[777]Local Government Chronicle, 27th August 1904, p. 898;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 97.

[778]Local Government Board's Decision,Local Government Chronicle, 1st November 1902, p. 1102;Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1902-3, by W. A. Casson, 1904, p. 72.

[779]Local Government Board to St. German's Union, December 1898;Local Government Chronicle, 24th December 1898, p. 1192.

[780]Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 78.

[781]Memorandum relating to the Administration of Out-relief, February 1878, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 224. "The suggestion that non-resident relief should be absolutely abolished is one in which the president is quite disposed to concur, with perhaps, some reservation regarding existing cases" (Local Government Board to Chairman of Central Poor Law Conference, 12th May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, p. 56).

[782]Bradford Union to Local Government Board, 13th September 1901, forwarding resolution: "That ... the prohibition of non-residential relief to the widow and children of a person who may have died in the union of his settlement is harsh and totally out of keeping with the spirit of the times; and that the provisions of the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, and the Outdoor Relief Regulation Order, 1852, call for urgent revision." This received only an acknowledgment (Local Government Board to Bradford Union, 16th September 1901).

[783]Decisions of the Local Government Board, 1903-4, by W. A. Casson, 1905, p. 26.

Back to Index Next