Friendly Societies, State Action, and the Poor-law. 179 
of the Compounding Acts may be estimated by recent legislation, 
in which the same principle of convenience has overridden 
other considerations. The evil of providing for the cost of edu- 
cation by means of the Poor-law machinery has been denounced 
on account of its pauperising tendencies on the young.* Surely 
had there been due care to guard against the further demoralising 
of the poor, the method of supervising and paying the cost of 
their education which is now in use would have been avoided. 
There is ground for apprehension that the State action which 
offered the insurances they require may be in danger of the same 
mischief. The Commission note this possibility. It is essential 
to the good of the poor that the system of benefiting them by 
insurances should be kept as distinct from that of poor relief as 
light from darkness. 
There can be no question that the administration of the poor 
relief has of late years become more careful and intelligent than 
formerly. The conferences of Chairmen and other Guardians 
have done much to bring about improvement. A strict admi- 
nistration as to out-relief and compelling relatives to assist in 
the maintenance of paupers have a certain effect in deterring 
applications for relief. The poor are none the less cared for, 
while they are at the same time impelled in the direction of 
thrift. 
The knotty point of the treatment of applicants who are mem- 
bers of Friendly Societies was in no way cleared up by the Com- 
missioners, who, in answer to inquiries addressed to Boards of 
Guardians, found every variety of practice. Some Boards never 
* " The Payment op School Fees.— A deputation from the Manchester and 
other School Boards, Boards of Guardians, and School Attendance Committees 
waited upon Lord Spencer and Mr. Mundella at the Education Department, to 
urge their views in favour of placing in the hands of the local School Authorities 
the duty of paying the school fees for necessitous, but non-pauper children. 
" Mr. G. Milner, of Manchester, said that as the law now stood, the duty of 
enforcing school attendance was placed on the local School Authority, while 
that of paying the school fees for the cliildren of the needy, but non-pauper, poor 
was laid upon the local Guardians of the Poor. The necessity of application by 
the non-pauper, yet poor parents to the Guardians of the Poor, was attended by 
harassing vexation and many evils. It was an outrage on the feelings of the 
poor, but still respectable portion of the people, and involved a loss of time and 
caused irregularity in attendance. The deputation also desired to represent that 
the Guardians of the Poor in Manchester and Chorlton were anxious to be 
relieved of this duty. 
" Mr. Mundella, who in tlie course of tlie discussion had remarked that if any 
voluntary school refused to receive ragged children, he should at once cut off the 
grant, said he quite sympathised with the desire of the deputation to avoid 
bringing parents who were not paupers, in direct contact with the machinery of 
pauperism, and he should be glad if Boards of Guardians were no longer 
educational authorities ; but he must obey the law, and he had to deal with them 
as educational authorities. 
" Lord Spencer pointed out to the deputation that an Act of Parliament would 
be necessary in order to deal with the grievance. — Times, Jujy 13, 1881." 
N 2 
