COMMITTEE OF POOR LAW CONFERENCES. CENTRAL: Central. G. W. Hastings, Esq., Barnard's Green, Great Malvern. South-Eastern. F. H. Beaumont, Esq., Buckland Lodge, Reigate. ,, Western. Ch. Gordon, Esq., Wiscombe Park, Honiton. South Wales. J. T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., Ynisygenvn, Neath. West-Midland. T. B. Ll. Baker, Esq., Hardwicke Court, Gloucester. REPRESEKTATIVES West Midland. 91 Unions, (First met, 1868.) Gloucester. Rev. G. D. Bourne, Weston Subedge, Broadway. Hereford. Rev. W. P. Hopton, Frome Bishop, Bromj^ard. OxoN. Arthur H. C. Brown, Esq., Kingston Grove, Tetsworth. Salop. W. Layton Lowndes, Esq., Linley Hall, Broseley. Stafford. T. F. Twexilow, Esq., Betley Court, Crewe. Warwick. W. Dickins, Esq., Cherington, Shipston-on-Stour. Worcester. Rev. J. Pearson, Suckley Rectory, Worcester. South-Eastern. io6 Unions, (First met, 1870.) Berks. J. O. Taylor, Esq. Penrhyn Lodge, Reading. Hants. Wyndham S. Portal, Esq., Malshanger, Basingstoke. Kent. Hon. E. Stanhope, 3, Eaton Place West, London, S.W. Surrey. F. H. Beaumont, Esq., Secretary, Buckland Lodge, Reigate. Sussex. Rev. J. Goring, Weston Park, Steyning, Hurstpierrepont. South-Westem. 79 Unions, (First met, 1872.) Cornwall. Sir Chas. B. Graves Sawle, Bart., Penricg, St. Austell. Devon. Earl Fortescue, Castle Hill, Southmoulton. Dorset. Col. Cox, Beaminster. Somerset. J. P. Broadme.ade, Esq., Enmore Park, Bridgewater. Wilts. Earl Nelson, Trafalgar, Salisbury. South Wales. Zl Unions, (First met, 1873.) Brecon. Rev. Garnons Williams, Abercamlais, Brecon. Carmarthen. Chas. Nevill, Esq., AL P., Llanelly. Glamorgan. J- T. D. Llewelyn, Esq., Secretary, Ynisygerwn, Neath. Monmouth. S. R. Bosanquet, Esq., Dingestow Court, Monmouth. Pembroke. Rev. W. D. Phillips, Crumwen Rectory, Narberth. Northern. 39 Unions, (First met, 1872.) This Conference met in Aixgiist bnt did not appoint Representatives. Rev. J. Elphinstone Elliott, Secretary, Whalton, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Jas. Cropper, Esq., Ellergreen, Kendal. C. B. P. Bosanquet, Esq., Charity Organization Society, 15, Buckingham Street, Strand, W. C. Eastern, (^et 1872 — did not meet this year.) Rev. E. F. Gepp, High Easter Vicarage, Chelmsford. ' UiUC "Scr^'^ WEST-MIDLAND COUNTIES FIFTH ANNUAL Poor Law Conference, HELD AT GREAT MALVERN, AfAY4, 1S75. PRESENT:— Mr. G. W. HASTINGS, President, Mr. T. B. LI. Baker, Hardwicke Court, Gloucester Mr. Granville Baker, Wheatenhurst Rev. R. LowBRiDGE Baker, Witney Rev. G. D. Bourne, Evesham Rev J. Buckle, Ledbury Rev. G. CoRSER, Ludlow Mr. G. C. Craven, Northleach Mr. R. Dansey, Local Go-oernmcnt Inspector Mr. S. S. Dickinson, Stroud Rev. C. Dolben, Alcester Rev. G. Edmunds, Madeley Captain Gerard, Alcester Rev. E. F. Glanville, Oxford Sir Brydges Henneker, LocalGovern- ment Inspector Rev. W. P. HoPTON, Bromyard Rev. C. E. Hornby, Shipston-on-Stour Rev. Jno. Howe, Solihull Mr. E. Jones, Oswestry Rev. B. Ruck Keene, Newent Mr. Joseph Kiteley, Kidderminster Rev. T. P. Little, Newent Mr. F. D. Longe, Local Government Inspector Mr, W. Layton Lowndes, Madeley Mr, W. Madden, Bristol Rev. H. W. Maddy, Gloucester Mr. L. G. H. Mayer, Gloucester Rev D. Melville, Droitwich Mr. W. Minor, Market Drayton Mr. R. F. Onslow, Newent Major Papillon, Reading Rev. J. Pearson, Martley Rev. W. Phillips, Stoke-on-Trent Mr. C. Pidcock, Martley Major Raikes, Newent Mr. Rowland Ralph, Newport, Salop Mr. Ramsden, Witney Mr. R. Coxwell Rogers, Northleach Mr. George Ruddle, Tewkesbury Rev. Berkeley Stanhope, Weobley Rev. Nash Stephenson, Bromyard Mr. E. Tanner, Ludlow Rev. — Tyndale Mr. T. Trinder, Bromyard Rev. C. B. Trye, Cheltenham Rev. R. P. Turner, Kidderminster Mr. G. Ward, Headington Mr. R. Wedgwood, Winchcomb Rev. E. F. Witts, Stow-on the- Wold Mr. J. S. Whittem, Foleshill Mr. Joseph Yorke, Tewkesbury The Chairman said he acceded to the request of Mr. Baker and some other friends that he s-hould preside over that conference, with a good deal of diffidence, because he did not pretend to have that practical knowledge of the administration of the Poor Law which so many gentlemen around him eminently possessed. Although an ex officio Guardian of the Union in which he resided he was not able to pay any considerable attention to its business, for he found that when he had fulfilled his duties as deputy chairman of Quarter Sessions, as chairman of the School Board in the capital of the county, and in other capacities, he had reached the end of his resources as to time and labour. However, as they had kindly put him in the chair, he would do his best to discharge the duties with efficiency — he might be relied upon at all events to perform them with impartiality and an earnest desire to promote the objects of the conference. The first question to occupy the attention of the conference was the Law of Settlement and Removal, and he was very glad that the task of opening the discussion had fallen into the hands of Mr. Layton Lowndes, who always brought before them clearly and exhaustively any question with which he had to deal. W. Layton Lowndes, Esq., (Deputy- Chairman of Salop Quarter Sessions, and Chairman of the Madeley Union), then read the following Paper on "The Law of Settlement and Removal" — At the Annual Central Poor Law Conference, held in London in December last, it was recommended that one of the subjects for discussion at the several district conferences during the ensuing year should be " The Law of Settlement and Removal." At that meeting a considerable number of counties were represented, and a resolution was passed by a large majority. Perhaps this conference to-day may, after discussion, think it desirable to come to a similar decision ; and although our respective boards are by no means bound by any conclusion we may come to this morning, still, any determination arrived at by a large body of gentlemen actively engaged in, and with practical experience of, the working of the Poor Laws, must carry some weight and authority. It will serve to place the subject before you in a clearer point of view, if I briefly set out the state of the present Law of Settlement, and how its effects have been from time to time modified by the creation of the status of irremovability, and the extension of the area within which that status may be acquired. The place of dh'tk is prima facie the place of set- tlement — that is until an acquired settlement is shown — and a man has no option as to his place of settlement. He must be removed to the parish where he last ac- quired one. If he has never gained a settlement him- self, then the settlement of the father, or what is called a derivative settlement, over rides the birth settlement, so that when it is ascertained that the father or mother has a settlement, that is the settlement of the child. Derivative settlements are gained either by parentage or by marriage. The last settlement of the father is the settlement of the children until they have acquired one by their own act; consequently, this derivative set- tlement supersedes the birth settlement. If the father's settlement cannot be traced back either on the grandfather or grandmother's side, then recourse must be had to the mother's settlement ; and if the mother acquire a settlement during widowhood, the children follow it. But the children do not follow one acquired by their mother by a second marriage. A married woman cannot acquire a settlement in her own right ; but she acquires that of her husband if he has one. But if he has no known settlement, then the prior settlement of the wife before marriage continues. One of the most fruitful sources of litigation has been the settlement acquired by hiring and service. This was regulated by an Act passed in 1 691, which enacted that the servant must be unmarried and without child- ren, that the contract must be for one year prospectively from its date, and the service be for one year in the same service. By the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, no settlement by hiring and service can be ac- quired after the passing of that Act, but in agricultural districts this still remains one of the most frequent grounds of removal The same statute of William and Mary regulates settlement by apprenticeship, enacting that if any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture and inhabit in a town or parish, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement in that place wherein he served the last forty days. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 excepted from this provision apprentices to seamen and fishermen. Settlement by renting a tenement is gained by a per- son hiring by the year and actually occupying under such yearly hiring a dwelling house or building, or land, or both, at a yearly rental of ;^io a year at the least; and since August 14th, 1834, the person occupying the same must be assessed to the poor-rate and have paid the same in respect of such tenement for one year. There has been various legislation affecting the means of gaining a settlement by estate, but at the pre- sent time it seems it is not acquired if the purchase money be under £'^0, and it is not retained longer than the person shall inhabit within ten miles thereof; and such a settlement is not merely suspended — it is extinguished by ceasing to inhabit within the pre- scribed distance. Lord Ellenborouorh said " This is an excepted case in the law standing upon the ground that a man shall not be removed from his own." Settlement by serving an office cannot be acquired since August, 1834 ; but previously any one who served any annual public office or charge, such as that of con- stable, parish clerk, bellman, and so forth, gained a settlement. And we are still concerned with this ground, because if we can show that the grandfather of a pauper served the office of hog-ringer in the parish of Crowland, the pauper is settled in that parish. The same conditions are now annexed to the acqui- sition of settlement hy payment of rates as are imposed upon that of renting a tenement. Settlement by acknowledgement seems to be in some sense a summary of all the various grounds of settle- ment. It has been said that there is no proposition in the Law of Settlement more clear than this, that an order of removal unappealed against is conclusive against all the world. The pauper, however, may acquire a settlement else- where afterwards ; and if he does and it can be legally proved, the order of removal unappealed against is no lono-er in force. We see then that after the Restoration by 13 & 14, Car. II., c. 12, a legal settlement was declared to be gained by birth, or by inhabitancy, apprenticeship, or service for forty days, within which period all intruders were made removable from any parish by two justices of the peace, unless they settled in a tenement of the annual value of ^10. This power of removal, however, was repealed by Mr. East's Act in 1795, which enacted that no person should be removed till they became chargeable. In 1846 the first of a series of Acts was passed which has made a most important change in the laws which regulate relief and settlement. It was enacted that mere residence in one place con- fer not a settlement, but a status of irremovability from the parish where the person has resided five years without receiving relief. This period of five years was reduced to three in 1 86 1, and the area of residence was extended from the parish to the union; and in 1865 the period was altered to one year, at which it still remains. The Act of 1 846 threw the cost of maintaining the irremovable poor upon the parish of residence ; but this was felt such a burthen and created so much dis- satisfaction that in the following year an Act was passed which transferred the charge from the parish to the common fund of the union. At that time the proportion in which each parish con- tributed to the common fund of the union was calcu- lated according to the averages — that is to say each parish paid not in proportion to their ability to pay, but in proportion to their existing burthens. The more settled paupers a parish had, the larger share it had to pay towads the cost of the irremovable poor. This injustice was remedied in 1861 by an Act which provided that after Lady-Day, 1862, the contributions to the common fund by the several parishes should be calculated according to the rateable value of the here- ditaments in each parish. This Act also cast upon the common fund the cost of lunatic paupers. In fact the charges upon the com- mon fund bore so large a proportion to the total expen- diture for the poor that the Government was enabled to carry out the recommendations of those who ori- ginally framed the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. By sections 33 & 34 of that Act, power was given to parishes in unions to unite for the purposes of settle- ment and rating ; but as the agreement had to be signed by all the guardians, the powers were, I believe, never acted on. Union chargeability was established by the Act of 1865, which also reduced the period of residence to one year. We have, therefore, now union settlement and union rating. We have thus a Law of Settlement — partially modified in 1834 — a law the consequences of which have been materially restricted by allowing a period of residence, at first in one parish, then in any part of the Union, for five years, for three years, and now for one year, to give a status of irremovability, or, in other words, making the old Law of Settlement pro tanto nugatory. The question then is, having gone thus far, are we to stand still, or to carry out to its logical conclusion the legislation of past years and abrogate the Law of Settlement entirely, or at any rate in England and Wales. It has been urofed that because the total cost of expenditure to the poor has increased since the area of rating and settlement has been enlarged that therefore to go on in the same direction and abolish the Law of Settlement entirely would throw a still further burthen upon the ratepayers. It is said that since we have had union chargeability the cost of the expenditure to the poor has been increased, and that the increase arises from the fact that guardians take less interest and know less about the cases than they did in former years ; and, on the other hand, press individual cases in order that their parish may have its fair share of a fund to which they contribute, and that these evils — and evils they undoubtedly are — would be aggravated by abolishing the Law of Settlement. And, first, as to increased expenditure. In the Madeley Union the total expenditure to the poor for the year ending Lady-day, 1865, before union chargeability was enforced, was ^5,487 ; and for the year ending Lady-day, 1873, -^5-949 I showing an increase of ^462. But the cost of in-maintenance and out-relief, added together, are almost the same — namely, in 1865, ^^3,35 1 ; and in 1873, ^3,343 ; a decrease of ^8, with a satis- factory change in the relative cost of the two items. The out-relief having diminished from ;^2,64i to ;^2,028, while the in-maintenance rose from £jio to ;^i,3i5. The number of paupers relieved shows a most satisfactory result. On January ist, 1865, we had 1,013 paupers; and on January ist, 1873, 689; a decrease of 324, or nearly of one-third. The experience of a single union proves little either way. Take a larger area, and see what the result has been in Salop Union — County. In 1865, the total expenditure to the poor was ^70,268 ; and in 1873, ^^73,361 ; showing an increase of ^3,093. For the same years the cost of in-main- tenance and out-relief, added together, gives £/\.^,()^'] and ^42,017. showing a decrease in 1873 of ^2,940. And while there is an increase for in-maintenance of ^4,000, there is a decrease in the cost of out-relief of ^6,940. On the ist January, 1865, there were 10,069 paupers as against 8,389 on January ist, 1873, a decrease of 1,680. I have taken the year before the Union Charge- ability Act was passed, and the last year for which the accounts are published by the Local Government Board, because this will enable you to verify my figures, 10 and to apply the formida to, and work out the result in, your own unions and counties. But I need scarcely remind the conference that the figjres of the past year would show a result still more in favour of the view I am advocating. In my own union, for instance, the out-relief has decreased during the ten years from ^2,642 to ;^i,i7i, with an increase in the in-main- tenance from £^10 to ^881, showing a net decrease of £1,^00, while our paupers have diminished by more than one-half. For these reasons I do not think that any weight is to be attached to the objection on the score of increased expenditure ; the increase which has taken place is not owing to the alteration in the Law of Removal and Settlement, but rather caused by the requirements of public opinion, expressed very fairly by the Local Government Board, and affecting the heads of expen- diture which would not be touched by the abolition of the Law of Settlement. Secondly, it certainly is not my experience that guardians take less interest, show |less knowledge of the cases, or attend less frequently than formerly. The first effect of the extension of the area of settlement and rating was to cause a careful revision of the relief list. Formerly we gave relief, perhaps, somewhat against our principles when the guardians and ratepayers of the parish concerned wished it, giving way on the ground that, after all, they would have to bear the cost. Our attendance of guardians is as good as ever it was ; each application is considered fairly, and without favour, and decided more on settled principles, and I am glad to say that the guardian who rarely attends, save to advocate some special applica- tion, does not usually secure the ear of the Board. Another objection sometimes urged is, that if we had national settlement — as would be the case — a national rate would follow. This I think would be a great evil, and would lead to increased expenditure. The mode in which property not assessed to the poor-rate can be made to bear some share in these II burthens is by a contribution from the general taxation of the county. This has been the case for many years past in regard to salaries of medical officers and teachers of poor law schools, and last year a more considerable concession in aid of local taxation was made by the repayment of 4^'. per head per week towards the cost of the maintenance of lunatics in asylums, and which in the Madeley Union represents a decrease in the poor-rate of three half-pence in the pound in the year. Possibly, at some future time, Government may think it advisable to contribute towards the cost of in-maintenance. One shilling per week would give ^375,000, taking the cost of in-maintenance at a million and a half. But whatever might be done in this direction, the contribution should bear such a proportion to the total cost that the direct interest of the guardians, as the representatives of the ratepayers, in keeping a vigilant watch over the expenditure should not be materially lessened. Another objection is, that if the Law of Settlement were abolished, it would be an inducement to, and more easy for, union officers to move destitute persons, or those likely to become applicants for relief to some other union and thus unfairly to shift the burthen. I do not think there is much in this ; it is very rarely done at present, and if it is done it is easily found out. Penalties on the one hand, and a strict application of the workhouse on the other, would certainly minimise the evil. Having thus touched upon some of the objections which may be raised, I will shortly mention some of the advantages which would attend the abolition of the present Law of Settlement and Removal. We should remove any restriction which still remains upon the free circulation of labour. Those who by residence have acquired a status of irremovability do not like to go into another union, where they may have relations willing to help them, for fear of being removed to their settlement parish^ — probably they only have a 12 derivative settlement — where they have no connection and are practically strangers. Another advantage would be that from the nature of the case non-resident relief would cease. The evils of this kind of relief have been so often pointed out that many unions have entirely discontinued the practice, and in cases where it is still allowed it is usually done to mitigate the hardships of the Law of Settlement, in order, for instance, to allow a mother to live with her daughter in some distant union, whence she is remov- able. We should relieve our law books of a mass of matter which, although interesting to some minds, is very intricate and puzzling, and we should be no longer interested in arguing whether or no a tour in a distant county was undertaken with an aiiirmis revertendi. Another very great advantage would be secured indirectly. The abolishing of the Law of Settlement would lead to a more equable administration of relief. We now see in one union a strict adherence to the principles of the poor law, with all its attendant benefits, a low rate of pauperism, diminished expenditure, the encouragement of thrifty habits. In another union, in the same county, perhaps, there is lax administration. Out-relief the rule, instead of being only given in exceptional cases ; no provision made for old age, or sickness, because all inducement to provide for these contingencies is taken away by the moral certainty that relief will be given by the guardians at the houses of the applicants in the form most accept- able to the paupers. It will be soon found out which, from the pauper point of view, are "good" unions, and which are "bad" ones. The ratepayers of a "good" union will have practical experience that the reputation for generosity, earned by their guardians, costs them very dearly. I have now very briefly sketched out the Law of Settlement and Removal as it exists at present, and mentioned some of the supposed objections and advan- tages which would follow upon its abolition. I do not 13 advocate any further change in the area of rating ; I do not wish to see a national poor-rate ; but I do think that the only logical sequel to the legislation of past years is the total abolition of the Law of Settlement as far as concerns England and Wales, that every person should be free to go where he likes, and be entitled to relief — -I do not say out-relief — wherever by reason of destitution he may become chargeable. In conclusion, I will read you a resolution, passed unanimously the other day by the guardians of the township of Manchester — a township with a population of 1 74,000 — " That, though this township must incur a considerable additional expenditure by the change, this board feeling bound to regard the general interest of the countr}' at large, considers that the time has arrived for the entire repeal of this law as being inconsistent with the spirit of the age, and in many cases inflicting much needless hardship on individuals, while conferring no counterbalancing benefit on the community." This is most important. We are told the large towns — the metropolitan unions — will oppose any change in the law. At any rate, we have a decided expression of opinion from one very large industrial centre in favour of abolition of the Law of Settlement. Mr. T. B. Ll. Baker said that as he desired that both sides of the case should be fully brought before the meeting, he had invited ]\Ir. W. Vallance, of the Whitechapel Union, to write a letter on the subject. Mr Baker read as follows : — Whitediapel, May 3, 1875. My Dear Sir, In response to your invitation, I venture to submit a few observations upon the subject which will be presented to the Malvern Conference to-morrow. The position which I am led to adopt in relation to the question is (i) that the abrogation of the Law of Settlement and Removal would occasion undue pressure of the burden of maintenance upon certain districts of England ; 14 (2) that It would induce mendicant habits among the poor ; and (3) that It would largely tend to foster pauperism, especially that of a voluntary and speculative character. If this position is justified by a consideration of the subject, a serious responsibility Is undertaken by the advocacy of an unconditional repeal of a law which has existed for more than two centuries with, more or less, salutary effect. I say that the abrogation of the Law of Settlement and Removal would occasion undue pressure of the burden of maintenance upon certain districts. Now, I cannot do better than Instance the Whitechapel (a Metropolitan) Union, point to its charitable agencies, its refuges, and Its common lodging-houses (with their 5,000 nightly lodgers) and ask a consideration of the disastrous effects of casting upon the Guardians the duty of relieving permanently the destitution, thus local- ized, without some such appeal and test as are afforded by the existing law. The paupers who are recruited from these refuges, nightly lodging-houses, &c., are, for the most part, of the least worthy class ; very few have done a week's work In the neighbourhood at all ; and the cases In which there has been a dona fide Industrial object In coming into the district are com- paratively few. But, as the law at present stands, the Guardians are enabled to say " We shall make a strict Investigation Into your antecedents and pass you to a place where you are better known than you are here." Thus, whether the promise is kept, or whether It induces a personal effort, the power vested In the Guardians Is put forth for the benefit of the district, as of the pauper. Next, I submit that the abrogation of the Law of Settlement and Removal would Induce mendicant habits among the poor and largely tend to foster pauperism, especially that of a voluntary and speculative character. It is obvious that, without such a test or appeal as the law at present affords, there would be no restriction upon the movements of the Idle and vagrant poor. 15 The worst evils of vagrancy would be revived. Vag- rancy would become organized and we should find that the specialities of English workhouses would become as well known as the casual wards were a few years ago. There would be literally no means of preventing a person seeking and receiving relief from fifty different unions in as many weeks. If " John Jones" is too well known in one neighbourhood he would be able to shift his quarters and there as " Thomas Brown " he would be equally destitute and would be able to demand and receive relief as at the place from whence he came. For these reasons, I submit that rather than the Law of Settlement and Removal should be entirely repealed, there should be an alternative sought, which will pro- tect the interests of the community and place some restriction upon voluntary pauperism and mendicancy. The opposition to the present law appears to me to be mainly grounded upon a consideration of those exceptional cases in which there have been hardship, conflict, litigation, or expense, without a sufficient re- gard to its general operation. Many of the statements which have been made in the advocacy of a repeal of the existing law I entirely agree with. I concur in what has been said that the poor ought not to be liable to removal from a place with which may be connected their whole association in life. I concur that where a man has laboured, there his destitution, if and when it arises, should be met and relieved. I admit that residence (as distinguished from a temporary dwelling) in a union should constitute a claim against that place which should bar removal. I concur that widows with families should not be liable to removal from a place in which they have resided with their late husbands. But, what are the facts ? Paupers are not now liable to removal from places in which they have resided twelve months. Residence (for twelve months) does constitute a claim to relief without liability to re- moval. Widows are not now liable to removal (even at the expiration of twelve months), as has been suggested, unless it should happen that they are i6 temporary sojourners and not residents (for twelve months). But, I do not desire to be regarded as being en- tirely satisfied with the present law. I am sensible of the existence of evils which call for remedy. There are cases occasionally arising (very exceptional, I ad- mit) in which there is undoubted hardship inflicted upon the poor. There, is much litigation, even now, which might and should be avoided, and there is also great and needless expense incurred. The hardship to the poor is chiefly occasioned by the possibility, under the existing law, of a poor person, where by misfortune he has broken his residence, being removed to a parish or union which he scarcely knows by name, owing to the remoteness of his ancestor's settlement which he in- herits. There is also hardship in the possibility of the dismemberment of a family, where the mother may happen to have been twice widowed. At the same time, even these cases may be taken to be exceedingly rare, however possible, since guardians must be gene- rally credited with a desire to apply the law humanely, and not to enforce removal in such cases. Then, there is the litigation and expense, not nearly what they were formerly, to be sure, which is entailed in working the present law. But, here again, they arise mainly from the complex and remote character of the derivative set- tlements, which have to be investigated and determined, and cannot be taken as sufficient reason for sweep- ing away, at one stroke, the entire Law of Settlement and Removal. Now, admitting that evils and defects do exist, I yet submit that it is not expedient to abolish the Law of Settlement and Removal, but rather that they show ground for a further amendment and simplification of that law. And the direction in which I am at present disposed to suggest amendment is the following : To let a pauper's birth settlement be held to supersede all prior derivative settlements, and to let a birth settlement, in its turn, yield to settlements acquired by the pauper after the age of twenty-one years. Next, to create a resi- 17 dential settlement of (say) five years ; and, to avoid the separation of families where there has been more than one marriage, to let it be clearly laid down that a child follows the settlement of its surviving parent until the age of twenty-one years, and that a wife or widow (in her turn) follows the settlement of her last husband ; and to let emancipation be made absolute at twenty-one years. These suggestions may be regarded as somewhat technical, and, at first sight, have an appearance of com- plication rather than simplification ; but I make them with a confidence that a consideration of their practical effect will result in the admission that the law would thus be simplified, expense minimized, litigation ren- dered almost impossible, and hardship to the poor removed. Yours most faithfully, W. VALLANCE. T. B. Ll. Baker, Esq., Hardwicke Court, Gloucester. Discussion. The Rev. J. Pearson said he agreed with the view taken by Mr. Layton Lo^\^ldes. Every step that had been taken to restrict the operation of the law had been an improvement, and that was a strong argument in favour of going further. The principal argument against the abolition of the law was that it would increase the expenditure. In his union the cost of out-door relief was not more than half of what it was 30 years ago, and had very much decreased since 1865. This showed that when guardians really attended to the business of the union, the expenses might be kept down notwithstanding the changes that had been made. The question affected two classes, the rate- payers and the poor, and in his own judgment there was no cause for fear in respect of the former. Another objection was that if there were no Law of Settlement mendicancy would be increased — people would go from union to union. They did that now — they went from work- house to workhouse, and so travelled through the country. The strong arm of the law was what they must look to for the suppression of vagrancy. No doubt some localities would suffer from the abolition of the law, but they could not legislate for exceptional cases. Looking to the benefit of the country at large, he thought there could not be the slightest doubt as to the propriety of the course advocated by Mr, B Layton Lowndes. By adopting it they would get rid of continual litigation, of great complexity of operation, and would inflict no injustice. With reg^ard to the poor, there could be no doubt as to the benefit they would receive. What a great hardship it was that persons should be removed from places in which they had long lived to parishes which they hadnot seen since their earliestyears,orperhaps had never known at all. On the grounds, therefore, that the new law caused unnecessary trouble, confusion, and litigation, and that its abolition, while doing no harm to ratepayers, would be a boon to the poor, he was strongly in favour of the conclusions set forth in the paper first read to them. Mr. G. Ward said he could illustrate the hardship of the present law, by stating the case of a woman at Manchester ; neither her father nor her husband obtained a settlement, in course of time the father and the husband died, and the woman sought relief. By some means which they had in large towns of finding out where a pauper was chargeable, it was found in this instance that Headington was the place. Consequently the clerk of this union was written to, and one fine morning a woman and four or five children were set down at the door of the workhouse. The woman had never been in the neighbourhood, she had lived at Manchester where all the persons she knew resided. However her consent to the removal was obtained, but the Headington guardians were humane enough to send her back to Manchester, and relieved her there. The Rev. C. Dolben, said the total abolition of the Law of Removal would unquestionably be a good thing for rural unions. It might be hard on some of the large towns at first, but it should be remembered in regard to persons who left country parishes that the towns had the benefit of their labour for (in many cases) long periods, and he thought it was only fair that when they became ill the towns should keep them instead of sending them back to the country unions where their services had not been available when they were able-bodied. The Rev. G. D. Bourne was in favour of the abolition of the law, but he could not understand how the alteration was to be carried out at Liverpool, Bristol, and other seaports where there were large settlements of Irish. Were those people to remain and be chargeable to the town ? If so, that would be a great hardship. Mr. Madden said he did not represent the Bristol guardians. He was a member of that body, but came to the conference on his own responsibility. However, he believed what he had to say would be the feeling of a great majority of his Board. The large urban districts would be very seriously affected if the law were got rid of, and he was surprised to hear that the guardians of Manchester had acquiesced in the proposal for abolition. He considered that in Mr. Vallance's letter they had some reasonable suggestions for the amendment of the law. He could understand that hardship was caused to the poor in some instances, but those suggestions would, if acted upon, remove it. The cases of hardship were not frequent. The guardians in Bristol had had a good deal to do with the law, and they found ^9 that the putting it in operation greatly tended to keep strangers ofif tlie rates. Their efforts during the past twelve months had been most satisfactory ; they had recovered from other unions for main- tenance of lunatics alone nearly a sufficient sum to pay the whole expenses of their settlement and removal business, and he did not think they had spent so much as fifty shillings in law. He was convinced that alteration of the law in the direction indicated by Mr. Vallance would be infinitely better than abolition, which would cause people to flock from agricultural districts to the large centres of population. Many of them would perhaps come on the rates in a few weeks, and there would be no power to send them back. When working people went from country unions to towns and earned fair wages, they had no difficulty in obtaining a settlement under the present law, whereas the effect of abolition would be that people would go from union to union, they would learn from one another in what unions the best treatment was to be had, and there they would settle. The Rev. C. B. Trye said he could give an opinion on the matter from a number of cases of hardship he had met with during a long experience. His union was partly agricultural and partly town. It was well known that Cheltenham was a very attractive place for persons of all classes ; many persons came there who were not exactly paupers, but were on the verge of pauperism. He thought, independently of this, that it would be very desirable to have the Law of Settlement abolished. In his union the subject was very fully discussed a few weeks ago, and it was resolved, with one dissentient, that it was desirable to abolish the Law of Settlement and Removal, also that there should be a more uniform system of granting relief, and that the law of vagrancy should be amended. Since the law was altered, in 1865, and the settlement was limited to one year's residence, there were many persons coming to Cheltenham who starved for the first twelve months, and as soon as the year was over applied for relief. There were people in the town earning a livelihood who wished to have their parents with them, but could not afford to maintain them entirely. As to cases of hardship, he could remember the cases of persons who were removed to parishes in which none of their families, except their grandfathers, had lived. He might mention a case of the greatest possible hardship with regard to the removal of Irish. When staying in Ireland, 20 years ago, he became acquainted with the case of an Irishman who lived 15 or 20 years in London, where he spent all his best days, and was married to an English woman. He became very ill, and died in the work- house, leaving three or four children. The widow, who was a native of London, with the children were then removed to the centre of Ireland. If the law were not got rid of altogether, it might be very desirable to limit it to a birth settlement. He thought that would take away a great deal of the hardship. Mr. F. D. LoNGE said he was not so much officially concerned with this question as with others connected with the Poor Law, inasmuch as it was a question of law and not of administration ; at the same time it had been brought a good deal under his notice lately. There was no doubt a strong feeling in favour of the abolition of the Law of Removal. To that a reply had been given in Mr. Vallance's letter, and he thought a very forcible reply. The arguments against the Law of Settlement and Removal were numerous: there was waste of money, waste of labour, hardships, aiid litigation. Nevertheless, he confessed his views were precisely those of Mr. Vallance. He thought that if the law were aboUshed great encouragement would be held out to voluntary pauperism, and, on the other hand, that the law could be sufficiently amended by the abolition of all settlements but the birth settlement. There was no difference of opinion so far as the country unions were concerned ; abolition would be a pure gain to them ; but they must consider what the effect would be on the general pauperism of the country. It would be no satisfaction to have the law abolished if the effect were that the pauper class left the country districts and flocked to the towns in enormous numbers. This would disorganize the present system of relief; it would lead to a general system of vagrant pauperism, the most difficult class of pauperism to deal with in the towns. While comparatively few bad characters were found in country unions, there were large communities of vagrant paupers in our large towns. In Whitechapel, as they had heard, there were no less than 5,000 who would probably apply for relief, and the guardians would have no power to refuse ; they could only give the workhouse. Men of unsettled habits, with families, would be able to go about the country, and when they were in a workhouse it would be difficult to get them out. The guardians would no longer be able to deal with their own poor as at present ; they would have to make the workhouse test more severe so as to prevent its being abused. The tendency would be to draw a distinction between applicants for relief, and to give out-relief more freely to those who belonged to the union. How would they be able to judge what workhouse accommodation should be supplied in any particular union ; it would be impossible in large towns to know where to stop. The workhouse had a deterrent influence now ; people who belonged to the locality were ashamed to go into it ] but if persons could go to a town union, where they were not known, and get accommodation, they would more readily do so. With regard to the removal of widows upon derivative settlements, if the birth settlement were established as the only one, young widows with families would be removable, if at all, only to their own homes, and that would greatly reduce the number of removals, and prevent the occurrence of most cases of hard- ship. The Rev. G. Corser said his union was strongly in favour of the abo- lition of the law. He was pleased to hear the resolution passed by the Manchester guardians, because the people there were eminently practical. He, however, agreed with the suggestion that, as the law had hitherto been modified by gradual steps, if a further modification could be made in the way of substituting birth for derivative settle- ment it might perhaps be better than entire abolition. 21 Mr. Minor (Market Drayton), said he had witnessed great evils arising from the present law as regarded hardship to the poor and expense to the ratepayers. It was true the law had been so altered that removals were less frequent than formerly, but there were now nearly 2,000 removals annually, and if they took his own union as a criterion, the amount spent in removals — especially if they were con- tested — was very large. In a case which occurred not long ago an appeal cost the Drayton Union upwards of ;^7o ; and in another case, a widow with a family of six children — after being removed to another union first, which failed — were afterwards removed to his union upon the flimsy evidence of an old man nearly eighty years of age, who said he had lived with the deceased husband's grandfather as a hired servant at a certain farmhouse between sixty and seventy years before ; of course, we had no evidence to rebut it, and were obliged to accept the pauper. There was also a ver)' recent case of an old man and his wife^ who came to reside in the Drayton Union to be near their relatives^ just over the border from another union. They applied for relief in the former, and when the guardians wrote to the latter they refused to take them, thereby putting the Drayton Union to the expense of an order of removal. In the meantime the wife became ill, and they had to be placed under suspended orders at some further expense, and after her death sent the husband to his union. We had a case in which the settlement of four children was supposed to be in Wiltshire and had a removal from Wednesbury at the same time, and the guardians were sending a person to those two places to make inquiry as to those settlements at considerable cost. There was no doubt hardship would be caused to such places as Liverpool and Bristol on the western side of the country ; but were the community at large to suffer for the advantage of a few ? The action of the Manchester board was most magnanimous ; and his brother, who was chairman of a union in a large colliery district, had always been opposed to abolition, but had lately come round to the opinion that the law ought to be done away with because of the hardship to the poor and expense to the unions. He did not agree with Mr. Madden or Mr. Longe that it would increase itinerancy, and was glad to say he knew two local government inspectors — Mr. Doyle and M.r Corbett, who were satisfied that abolition ought to take place. Although Mr. Lowndes had given a long list as to how settlements were and had been obtained, he had not enumerated all; for instance, an illegitimate female child may belong to four unions by the time she was seventeen years of age. When we consider that union settlements have taken the place of parochial with the yearly residence, there remains a very narrow line to be passed to complete the abolition that the change would scarcely be perceived, and he was convinced, from long experience, that this law should not remain any longer on the statute book. Sir Brydges Henneker said the nobleman who had given notice to introduce a bill for the total abolition of the law, was a very near relative of his. He had been in constant communication with him on the subject, and had seen most of the answers received from 22 boards of guardians. He was very much astonished at the unanimity of opinion. He might state positively that the vast majority were in favour of abolition. It had been implied by one speaker from what Mr. Longe said, that the abolition of the law would increase vagrancy. Mr. Longe drew a distinction between vagrants and travelling paupers ; he did not mean that vagrants would increase but that paupers would wander more. He considered there was great force in the assertion that if the law were abolished there would be an increase of wandering from workhouse to workhouse, but he would not say whether or no he was in favour of abolition. Mr. Dickinson said the objections of Mr. Vallance were so specu- lative that it was difficult to meet them. He would rather go back to first principles. He could not see that a Law of Settlement was necessarily connected with the Poor Law. The birth settlement now proposed to supersede all others would be arbitrary. He was born in India ; where was his settlement ? Families moved about ; one child was born in one place, another in another. A Law of Settlement and Removal was arbitrary, and was no essential part of the Poor Law system. Experience was universally against it. Numerous cases ot hardship and of loss to the ratepayers had come under his observa- tion. There was a department of local administration which might be more fairly connected with a Law of Settlement than the Poor Law. He could understand a Law of Settlement as regarded crimi- nals who might, with some show of justice, be sent to be kept at the cost of the places that bred and educated them. If they went back to the origin of the law they would find it was intended to meet a state of things that did not now exist. Mr. Vallance asserted that which could not be proved ; he said that if they abolished the law certain results would follow. That was the sort of argument used against all changes. No reform was ever introduced without their hearing it ; but reforms were carried out and the pre- dicted evils did not arise. Mr. Vallance said that the abohtion of the law would introduce into populous districts an amount of pauperism that could not be met. It was the business of the Poor Law to meet it ; they had no right to do so by playing off other unions against it. He did not think wandering would increase, for paupers had no facilities for moving from place to place in search of comfortable workhouses. Mr. T. B. Ll. Baker said one question had only been cursorily noticed, namely, whether the abolition of the Law of Settlement should be extended to Ireland. He had lately been going through the statistics of crime in Ireland and England, and his attention had been directed to the extraordinary numbers of Irish committed in England. The statement was made in the House of Commons that Ireland was more free from crime than England. He got the Irish judicial statistics, and had compared them with the English. He found that crime in Ireland, in proportion to the population, was about eighteen per cent, less than in England ; but if they compared the numbers of Irish convicted in Ireland and England and Wales with the numbers of English and Welsh convicted in England and 23 Wales and Ireland, the proportion of Irish was very nearly double. In 1S73 there were 446 English-born persons convicted in Ireland ; in England and Wales over 22,000 Irish were convicted. The reason was that England did not, as a rule, send out the worst part of her population, but Ireland appeared to do so. He believed the facts were the same with regard to pauperism, and that was a reason why the question of the settlement of Irish pauperism in England should be carefully considered. Mr. PiDCOCK said gradual alteration was better than organic change, and he suggested that the better way in this case would be to further amend the law and thus pave the way for its future abolition. Major Papillon said that the Reading Board were in favour of a law of residence instead of a Law of Settlement, their view being that the towns should be protected by enacting that when the pauper had not resided in the place for a certain time the expense of mainten- ance should be thrown on a county or national rate. The Chair]man in summing up the discussion remarked on the ability with which it had been conducted. He was anxious to say a word in support of what ]\Ir. Dickinson had stated as to speculative objections being raised to any change that might be proposed. One of the worst kinds of policy to which any body of men interested in the administration of the law could commit themselves, was the fear to make a change because they were told that something would happen if they made it. He had never known a change proposed without hearing it prophesied that something dreadful would follow, although no reasons were given, no facts stated. He would instance the efforts made some twenty years ago to establish in this country the system of reformatory schools. A striking series of articles appeared in the Economist, and the argument — theoretically and by itself most con- vincing — was this, " If there is one law more inexorable than another it is that of demand and supply ; wherever you create a demand, the supply is sure to follow. If you create reformatory schools, they can only exist by the supply of young criminals, and you will enormously increase the number of such criminals." Fortunately the argument was not attended to ; reformatory schools were numerously established and the result had been that the number of young criminals had greatly decreased, and crime had been lessened through the supply being stopped. He ventured to think that on this question also they might safely disregard any speculative objection, especially for the reason that they had facts to go upon. If it were proposed to make an organic change, no doubt they would all feel it necessary to pause and think much before they ventured on such a step. But the organic change was made long ago. What were originally considered safe- guards had gradually been removed, and only the one year's residence remained. The present system was a mere rag of the old one. They were so near the precipice* that it was impossible to see how they could take one step more without falling over, and if they did he thought they would land at the bottom with no serious consequences. The principle of the system arose from a state of things that had long passed away. There could be no question that the original idea of 24 the Law of Settlement was that the labourers of this country were to a great extent to be the slaves of the soil on which they were born, and everything was to be done to discourage the transmission of labour from one locality to another. The present law was a relic of that old system of villeinage. When the landowners found that this system had been gradually passing away and was almost extinguished, a Law of Settlement was introduced in the reign of Elizabeth. He for one could not help feeling convinced that it was really a continuation of the policy of the landed interest, who saw that the labourers were slipping from them, and, after trying in vain the Statutes of Labourers, they fell back on a rigid Law of Settlement, in the hope that it would bind the labourers to the soil. So far from wishing, as was the case now, that the towns should receive labourers, and that by that means they should be rid of responsibility, they wanted to retain the labourers in the country parishes, so as to keep down the rate of wages, and secure an adequate supply of labour. They believed now in a system of free trade. They allowed a man to go where he could obtain the best remuneration for his services. When they had once fully carried out that principle, he failed to see how they could consistently maintain a system of Settlement and Removal which came into practical antagonism with the facts of the present day. Undoubtedly the opinion of the great majority in that meeting — and it must sooner or later be the opinion of a large majority of Parliament — was that the I^aw of Settlement should be entirely abrogated. A compromise was proposed — namely, that all settlements should be swept av>'ay except that of birth. He wished the conference well to consider whether, if they went so far as that it was worth while to retain the birth settlement, whether they had better not reap the full advantage of a free flow of labour Irom one part of the country to another, and whether that would not counterbalance any partial and temporary inconvenience which might result from entire abolition. He quite understood what the natural feeling of the towns was — "We are subject to an inundation of people thrown on our rates ; why are we to keep them when there are other places to which they are bound by greater ties, and which ought to be respon- sible for them ?" His answer to that was based on an old maxim of law which said that those who reaped the benefit must also bear the burden which the benefit might happen to entail. What was the fact with regard to the great centres of labour ? They benefited enor- mously by the influx of labour from agricultural districts to keep up their manufacturing and commercial enterprise. That migration was the very life of their manufactures and commerce. It was perfectly true that a portion of that migratory supply was burdensome instead of valuable ; but as the towns took the benefit they must take the burden also. They could not separate one portion of the stream from the other ; they must be willing to bear the burden of the weak and helpless as well as reap the benefit of the strong and energetic, who helped to feed their enormously growing wealth. That was the answer which would surely prevail with Parliament, when the question game to be argued as to any hardship to the urban districts in this 25 matter. The question of litigation had been touched upon. All these artificial systems of law necessarily led to litigation, which might be avoided if the law were made equable and natural. As to that wider question that those who did not happen to o^^'n real property should bear some of the burden of the rates, it seemed to him, so far as any additional expense with regard to in-door pauperism was concerned, that it would be best met by a course that he, for one, was strongly in favour of, and which he believed would be founded equally on justice and expediency — namely, that of paying a portion of the indoor relief from the Consolidated Fund so as to ease the local ratepayers. As to the predicted increase of vagrant pauperism, it was true that to a large extent they had to deal with it now. If a man left one union in a destitute state and drifted into another they must relieve him temporarily ; but he failed to see what consequences would follow the abolition of the Law of Settlement that might not be met by increased vigilance on the part of local authorities, and, perhaps, on the part of the central authority. If it were true that workhouses differed so much in accommodation that some would be regarded as more agreeable than others, and paupers would flock to them, then such abuses ought to be removed. Would not the abolition of the Law of Settlement be the best way of removing them ? Guardians would find it to their interest to place their workhouses on the proper level, and it would become necessary to have that uniformity in workhouse treatment which they desired in their prisons. He was glad to say that in this county Mr. Pearson and his colleagues took care to make the prison so unpleasant a place that very few were desirous of returning who had once experienced its hospitality. But there were county prisons where a different state of things existed, and such abuses ought to be got rid of He failed to see why a want of uniformity in workhouse treatment should cause them to shrink from expressing their opinion in favour of the total abolition of the Law of Settlement. Mr. Lowndes, in reply, said that the able manner in which the President had summed up the discussion left him nothing more to say; but it seemed to him the only valid objection that had been raised to his conclusions would be entirely met by an improvement in their administration of the Poor Law. In order to bring the discussion to some practical issue he would move — "That in the opinion of this Conference, the time has now arrived when the Law of Settlement in England and Wales may with advantage to the community generally be wholly abrogated. " Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion, and remarked on the importance of Boards of Guardians acting very much on the same principles in administering relief Speaking on non-resident relief, Mr. Dickinson said he thought that wherever relief was given it should be under the eye of the union authorities. The motion was then put, and carried with three dissentients, 26 The Education of Pauper Children. The Chairman said that some time ago, before he knew he should occupy the chair on that occasion, Mr. Baker asked him to read a paper on the subject of " The Education of Pauper Children." He had no idea that he was going to enlighten that conference, or to recommend to them any special or universal panacea ; but he merely wished to call their attention to this sub- ject, and to draw out the experience of the various guardians as to the different modes they adopted for the education of pauper children, or the best that might be adopted under different circumstances. There might be no one absolutely best course — there might be different courses, each of which might be the most desirable according to the surrounding circumstances of the case. At the conference in 1873, when Sir Michael Beach, the present secretary for Ireland presided, Miss Rye brought before the notice of the conference her scheme for taking out pauper and destitute children to Canada, and there to find them homes, or places of service. Some objected to Miss Rye^s scheme but a great many were in favour of it. On that occasion he spoke strongly in favour of Miss Rye. He had known her for a number of years as a lady of the highest character, of the most exact truth- fulness, and as evincing the most earnest desire to do all the good that lay in her power. As they were all aware, an official, acting under instruction from the Local Government Board, went out to Canada, and it was said as the result -of the visit, that Miss Rye's system had broken down, and that many children were now in .a bad way. He was not about to attack Mr. Dt»yle, for doubtless every word that gentleman had yfitten had been penned-wi^h the best motives, and with' the most earnest desire to\do what was right. He would, however, tell them why he refused to sub- scribe to the opinion of Mr. I^oyle. He could give facts and reasons on the other side, and he hoped every guardian would suspend his judgment and enquire 27 more into the facts than perhaps they had yet been able to do. He happened to have been in Canada, and whilst there he had made every enquiry as to the working of Miss Rye's system. He never received but one opinion, and that was that the system was most excellent, that the children were taken great care of, and well looked after, and that they did well in the land of their adoption. In support of this he instanced the gathering of the children at Miss Rye's Niagara home, when 200 assembled who had been placed out at homes indifferent partsof the country, and the newspapers were unanimous in saying that the children were looking well — well fed and well cared for. This must be put against Mr. Doyle's statement. There might be some individual cases where children had fallen into misfor- tune, but he believed the great bulk of the children were infinitely better cared for than they would be at home. If they put out a number of children they could not expect otherwise than to have some failures, the children would not all get careful masters or mistresses. I'herefore it was unfair to bring a single instance of failure in Miss Rye's system, and then argue that the whole system was bad, and ought to be put a stop to by the Local Govern- ment Board. Miss Rye had done a noble work, and if he had children to send out he would do so with as much confidence now as he would have done in 1873. The Chairman then proceeded to speak upon the ques- tion of the education of pauper children, observing that they were all interested in the well doing in after life of those children. He proceeded to show the advan- tages that followed if children received a really substan- tial and good education to fit them for their station in life. If that were given they might hope that the child- ren would keep clear of pauperism when they grew up. He then spoke of the different means that were adopted to provide for that education. A school in a workhouse could not, under any circumstances, be made as efficient as a school out of it. This was so from many reasons — the number of children were not enough to make an efficient school, and they were not able to obtain a master 28 or mistress of the same standing as they did in large schools. However well workhouse schools were managed they could not bring them up to the same stand- ard as that of the ordinary elementary schools in the country. This had been so strongly felt that it had led to the establishment of district schools in many parts of the kingdom. By this means the children had been removed from workhouse influence, and by making laro-er schools better teachers and higher organization were obtained. These schools had done great good, but there was one drawback, and that was the danger morally and physically, of contagion spreading. One bad boy could do more evil in a large school than he could in a small one. It had also been shown that w^here large numbers of children were congregated in the metropolitan schools, opthalmia was something terrific ; therefore wdiatever good was done by those schools was to a great extent counterbalanced by the mischief that was liable to be wrought. Another system was that of sending the children to the nearest national school of the parish from day to day, instead of having a school in the workhouse. This had been tried with good results at Upton; they had no distinctive pauper dress, and associated on terms of equality with the other child- ren, and received precisely the same education ; they had no pauper taint about them, and he believed they would grow up with a greater feeling of independence and equality, than if brought up exclusively in the workhouse. In many places that system might be found to answer, where the surrounding circumstances were favourable and permitted of its being adopted. Mr. Hastings then alluded to the Education Amend- ment Act having given guardians the power to pay school fees, when parents were in receipt of out-door relief, for all Board Schools or Voluntary Elementary Schools, and as chairman of the Worcester School Board, he spoke highly of the admirable results arising therefrom, and believed it to be one of the best steps ever taken for the education of pauper children. 29 Discussion. The Rev. Nash Stephenson endorsed the opinion of the Chairman as to the advantage of sending children to school outside the workhouse. In Bromyard union they followed the example of Upton-on-Severn ; the children went to the national school at the usual times, and he believed that in addition to the other advantages, the education they received there was far better than they could get in the house. He agreed that there could be no tight rule, and schools might, in some cases be beneficially conducted in the work- house ; but in places where there were not more than 20 or 30 children the cost of educating them was out of all proportion to the results obtained. Besides the expense of teaching power, there was necessarily very imperfect classification. Then, again, he objected to children passing the whole of their early life within the four walls of the union. They were brought up in an artificial way ; they were not accustomed to the life they would hereafter have to encounter ; when they went into it the chance of failure was considerable, and so they became pauperized. In the case of children who were orphans, or were deserted, it was desirable to find homes for them outside the house. The Rev. — Tyndale asked whether the plan of sending the children to a school outside the workhouse did not interfere with the discipline of the house ? The Rev. W. P. Hopton replied that it was not found to interfere with the discipline. One of the paupers was selected to conduct the children to and from school. The Rev. John Howe said the system spoken of by the Chairman and Mr. Stephenson had been in operation in the Solihull Union for 10 or 12 years, and the guardians had never experienced the slightest difficulty as to the discipline. The children were escorted to and from school by the porter. The education was carried on much more efficiently, and it was an advantage to the children to be allowed to mix more freely with others of their o^vn age, who were not paupers like themselves. The pauper children of the Solihull Union after leaving the house, whether to be apprentices or domestic servants, had turned out satisfactorily, and he attributed this result in a great measure to the mode of their education. He, therefore, strongly supported the system. The Rev. C. B. Trye said the Cheltenham guardians had lately adopted the system of sending the children out to school. Some years ago there was a very fair school in the workhouse, but great difficulty was found in obtaining efficient teachers. If a good master were obtained he was not likely to submit to persons who were not so well educated — like masters and matrons. In his union they had traced back for seven years children who had gone out into life, and the greater portion of them had done well. The boarding out system had been tried in their union, and in nine case out of ten it had answered extremely well. They had so diminished the number of children that it would be quite ridiculous to think of having a teacher, 30 and tlie}^ had now adopted the plan of sending the children out into the town ; the boys were sent in charge of tlie porter, and there was a person to take care of the girls and assist the matron. He agreed that it was desirable to educate the children out of the workhouse. The Rev. J. Pearson said he agreed with the President that they should not endeavour to fix upon a particular system as the best for all places. He did not see the great objection to workhouse schools that was alleged. In his union the children were educated very well; they had a very good mistress, and the children were instructed intellectually and industrially. He never heard of boys who went out from the workhouse returning to it as paupers. The advantage they had in the workhouse over national schools was industrial training ; the boys worked on the land, and the training they got was most important for them in future life. He did not see how the pauper taint was removed when the children went to a national school, because they had to go back to the workhouse as their homes. Mr. Dickinson said, he endorsed the opinion adverse to a school in the workhouse ; he thought it Avas objectionable to let the children go to and from the workhouse to a national school, and was inclined to think a better plan would be to have schools established in different parts of the country which should be boarding schools for the pauper children and day schools for children of the neighbour- hood. By this means they might raise the standard of education morally, intellectually, and physically. District schools were costly, that was the point to be faced. Mr. Ward asked Mr. Stephenson what was done at his workhouse with the infants, and also whether the plan of sending the children to a national school did not interfere with the industrial training. The Rev. Nash Stephenson replied, that when the children were three or four years old they were able to walk the distance. The plan did somewhat interfere with industrial training, but there was no reason why the half-time system should not be adopted. Mr. Craven said, he favoured the plan of sending the children to the nearest national school. Mr. Dickinson had sketched out a system in connection with which one person was forgotten, namely, the ratepayer. There was great force in the letter of a tradesman, published in the 2Ymes, who pointed out that the workhouse child- ren had advantages which others did not possess : they had a medical man always at call, there were baths for them, and other comforts were provided. It would be unfair to establish a system of educa- tion at the cost of ratepayers who could not give such an education to their own children. The Rev. G. D. Bourne said it might happen that the nearest national school would not be in a position to receive all the children. He pointed out that by means of the boat ding-out system the children might be distributed among a number of schools. Mr. LoNGE said he had experience of each of the systems that had been described : of them succeeding in some places and failing in others. It would be a great mistake to put one system against another, as if one of them ought to be adopted everywhere. Each 31 system was very good in its way ; the success or failure depended very much on the persons who carried it out ; on the character of the master or mistress, and on the amount of interest which the guardians took in the matter. He beheved, in connection with small workhouses the system of sending the children to the nearest national school to be convenient and safe ; where there were larger numbers and they could get a good master and mistress, or even a good mistress, they might better educate the children in the house than in any other way. For populous places district schools might do well, but as had been pointed out, great expense had to be incurred and considerable risk run. He should never attempt to recommend one system in preference to another, without having a knowledge of the particular circumstances of the union. Mr. Layton Lowndes said he had been connected with the dis- district school at Quatt, in Shropshire, where there were about 150 children. No doubt there were a large number of good workhouse schools, but where there was a small number of children it was im- possible to have an efficient school. It would be far the cheapest plan to spend a little more money at first, in order to eradicate pauperism as much as possible. The workhouse taint was got rid of at a district school. With regard to expense, the cost of maintenance and clothing was about the same as in the workhouse. At Quatt school, for the last two or three years, the other charges — payment of interest and portion of the principal borrowed for building, the sala- ries, and everything else except the food and clothing, amounted to two shillings per head per week. They taught the girls and boys to- gether, without finding any practical difficulty, and the demand for the children was greater than the supply. ISIr. T. B. Ll. Baker said a nephew of his, ]\Ir. ]\Iurray Browne, had been making inquiries in reference to workhouse children, who were put out in life, and the accounts he received were generally as satisfactory as could be expected of the children of any labouring class. Many dis- trict schools had sufiered from devotion to architects ; the ratepayers of the metropolis had had to pay heavily for their magnificent build- ings. He believed such an unpretending school as that at Quatt might answer very well. He wished to know whether, when persons came into the workhouse for a short time, the children would be sent away from it. Mr. Lowndes said that in the Madeley union the children were sent to the South-east Shropshire District School ; but if they were detained in the workhouse for a few days only, they were sent to the national school. Mr. Lo^Mides advocated strongly a separate or district school where proper industrial training could be provided. The Chairman expressed the gratification with which he had heard so useful a discussion. On the motion of Mr. Layton Lowndes, seconded by Mr. T. B. Ll. Baker, a cordial vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Hastings for his able presidency, and the proceedings then terminated.