[490] The first notice that we have seen of the fact that some districts contain "a much higher proportion of the weak and old," than others, and that some have also a much higher rate of mortality among husbands than others, which vitiates any simple comparison of their pauperism, is in a Report by Mr. Culley (inspector) in 1873 (Third Annual Report, 1873-4, pp. 66, 72-3). But the hint was not acted on in the tables of statistics used by the inspectors.
[491] Mr. Longley did definitely recommend that outdoor relief, even to the widows with families, the sick and the "disabled"—by which he meant the aged—should be discontinued, except in cases that might be found to fall outside a series of categories so defined, and so extensive, as practically to include the whole of these classes. Moreover, in his view it was to be "regarded as the next step in the advance towards improved administration that applicants for out-relief shall be called upon to show special cause why they should not receive indoor relief" (Mr. Longley's Report in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 142).
[492] E.g. MS. archives, Newcastle Board of Guardians (lithographed letter of Mr. Hedley, inspector, drawing attention to the comparative outdoor pauperism of his unions, and urging reduction).
[493] History of the English Poor Law, by T. Mackay, 1899, vol. iii. p. 154.
[494] Fourth Annual Report, 1874-5, pp. xix-xx.
[495] Mr. Dodson (President of the Local Government Board) to deputation from Newington and St. Saviour's, Southwark, November 1881, in Local Government Chronicle, 26th November 1881, p. 951.
[496] Fifth Annual Report, 1875-6, pp. xvii-xix.
[497] Letter, signed by Sir John Lambert, to Mr. Albert Pell, M.P., Chairman of Central Poor Law Conference, 12th May 1877, in Seventh Annual Report, 1877-8, pp. 51-7.
[498] It is to be noted that Mr. Longley, in 1873, drew attention to the uncertainty of practice caused by the lack of definition of "able-bodied," and the different senses in which it was used in the official documents. He pointed out that the absence of definition seriously impaired administration, and urged that authoritative instructions should be issued (Mr. Longley's Report in Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. 174). We do not find that any action was taken.
[499] Circular of 2nd December 1871, in First Annual Report, 1871-2, p. 67. With regard to the 85,386 persons who received outdoor relief on 1st January 1873, as "able-bodied male paupers" (including, it must be remembered, 18,037 wives and 45,285 children of such men, 15,133 men relieved on account of their own sickness, 5572 on account of the sickness of wife or child, and only 1339 merely for want of work), the Central Authority observed without discrimination, that: "There would be, in our opinion, no material difficulty in enforcing, throughout all the unions, the salutary provision which forbids the allowance of relief to this class of persons except in a workhouse" (Third Annual Report, 1873-4, p. xiv). But no such "provision" existed, in any Statute or Order, or even in any official Circular, so far as we can discover. Mr. Corbett had once suggested that he should "encourage boards of guardians to abstain far more than at present, from giving out-relief to able-bodied men on account of their own sickness or accident." But even he did not propose its refusal in all cases (Mr. Corbett's Report of 10th August 1871). We cannot find that the Central Authority had ever before formally seemed to give its approval, if it really intended to do so by this obiter dictum, to the suggestion that sick persons ought not to receive outdoor relief.