gests the important inquiry whether in a country where the class of people with whom the children are mainly boarded in Scotland does not exist, it might not be possible to establish schools and homes under decent guardianship, in which orphan and deserted children could be reared and trained in moderate numbers and at a moderate cost? One of the objections which has been urged against the introduction of the system into England is, that there is no class in the English counties which corresponds as regards respectability and intelligence with the peasant farmers of the North. If this be a fact, then Dr. Mouat's suggestion that the great pauper schools should be 'broken up into smaller and more manageable bodies, and treated on the cottage-home or farm-school principle,' is one which deserves respectful consideration, as being a step at least in the right direction.2 Dr. Mouat is nominally an opponent of the Scotch system; but he desires to give to poor children as near an approach to the blessings of a family life as is practicable in the sense of economy, morality, and mental and physical culture befitting their position in life;' and if he can attain this desirable object by means which do not offend against what he is pleased to call 'sound economical laws,' his success will be welcomed in no grudging spirit. But the difficulty is, how without the family, the family life' is to be manufactured. A family life made to order, in obedience to 'economical laws,' will be about as like the real thing as the family life of the chickens who are hatched by steam.

6

The number of children boarded with any one guardian does not as a rule exceed two or three. The Poor Law Boards who have given most attention to the subject are very careful to keep the number down. When the new inmates exceed three, it is felt that the ordinary routine of the household must be more or less interrupted, and that an artificial element is imported which is in some measure inconsistent with the natural conditions on which the system relies. The expense is extremely moderate. The annual payments for each child (including all extras) nowhere exceed 10l.; and in many places they do not come to more than 71. or 8l. It was stated some years ago, if I recollect rightly, that the average cost of maintaining a child at an English district school amounted to not less than 16l. or 17l. There can be no doubt therefore that, however distasteful the Scotch system may be to sound economical laws,' it is at all events entirely consistent with economy."

The statistics gathered from our Scotch experience were given to the public in a small volume which I published in 1876.3 That volume also contained an analysis of the opinions expressed by the local inspectors throughout Scotland on the practical benefits of the system. There are 886 parishes in Scotland, and about as many

The Education and Training of the Children of the Poor,' by F. J. Mouat, read at the Statistical Society, April 20, 1880.

Pauperism and the Boarding-out of Pauper Children in Scotland. William Blackwood & Sons. 1876.

inspectors, and, with hardly an exception, the officials who had enjoyed the best opportunities of judging expressed themselves warmly in its favour. I am decidedly satisfied,' the inspector of Greenock remarked, in a letter which may be taken as a sample of the rest,

with the results obtained by the boarding-out system. In the first place, the physical development of the children is more effectually secured. As is well known, many of the children who fall on the board for support are of a delicate, diseased constitution; to these, removal to the country brings strength, health, and activity. In my experience of the administration of the poor-law for the last twenty-five years, I have found that boarding in the poorhouse or similar institutions has never produced these results. Another beneficial result to the children themselves is the improved moral training they receive when boarded out, as compared with their up-bringing in a poorhouse. The parochial authorities here select thoroughly respectable, good-living people as nurses. Children placed in close companionship with such guardians, daily witnessing their exemplary conduct and consistent lives, and trained to habits of industry, economy, and sobriety under their care, cannot fail to be influenced for good; and in after-life it is a very rare occurrence to hear of them again as paupers.

It was natural enough that poor-law reformers south of the Tweed should be anxious to secure a trial for a system which had worked so advantageously in the North. Mrs. Nassau Senior, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Miss Hill, and others, strenuously exerted themselves to induce the authorities to adopt it. A measure of success attended their efforts; and I was under the impression that it was slowly but surely making way among the English unions. But Sir Charles Trevelyan informs me that its general introduction is still bitterly resisted by the advocates of workhouse and district schools; and he has sent me a correspondence which has lately appeared in "The Charity Organisation Reporter,' between Mr. Tufnell and his friends on the one hand, and the advocates of boarding-out on the other. "There would be real public advantage,' Sir Charles is good enough to say

in your closing the correspondence with a letter giving a short general view of the system and its results in Scotland; for all admit that it has been carried on there on a scale and for a length of time to make it a real example to England. . . . A large number of persons interested in such questions in England are watching this trial of strength with the avowed prominent antagonist of what is to us a new institution, and its fate in these southern parts will therefore in some considerable degree depend upon the result of the correspondence.

The subject, however, proved too large for a letter, and the present paper may possibly be accepted as my reply to the appeal.

The objections taken by Mr. Tufnell to the Scotch system were dealt with by me in the volume to which I have referred (pp. 58-66); and on looking at the correspondence in the Reporter,' I find that he has reproduced in a vague general way most of the charges which he formerly made, and which I fancied had been conclusively

disposed of. These, in so far as I am concerned, must be allowed to die a natural death,—if a writer on social economics will not look at the facts as they are presented in official documents, but only at the 'facts' as they are evolved out of his own consciousness, there is nothing more to be said. The main contention that boarding-out increases the number of pauper children, by inducing relatives to throw them upon the parish with the view of getting them back with a weekly stipend,' entirely broke down. It was proved that in general the children are not boarded with relatives; that when boarded with relatives strict inquiry is made, and the test applied, before any assistance is given; and that the number of orphan and deserted children in Scotland supported by the rates is, when compared with England, exceptionally small. The more the figures are examined the more reckless and unwarranted, I venture to think, will such accusations appear; but the one considerable objection now mainly insisted on, viz.—the failure of the system when tested by its results—is one to which from the nature of the case it is hardly possible to offer any perfectly conclusive reply.5

Mr. Tufnell says:—

The only outcome yet published of the boarding-out system comes from Scotland, where it has been long tried, and where it appears that of 900 boarded-out children 5 per cent. had failed. Now, this is a very large percentage-far larger than the outcome of the district, or even the small workhouse schools. These 900 children in Scotland are all orphans, and of that class never more than 1 per cent. fail from the English district schools. The whole number of failures in the district schools is 3 per cent., of which I have given numerous proofs in the paper I read before the Social Science Congress in 1878, which I see you quote. It is well known by all conversant with the education of pauper children that the orphans almost invariably turn out well; the real difficulty arises with those who have parents, and are constantly fluctuating, and of these, the only really difficult class to manage, the boarding-out system takes no notice."

Mr. Tufnell contrasts the Scotch with the London pauperism; and, through the courtesy of the Local Government Board, I am able to give the latest figures. The estimated population of London is about equal to that of Scotland, and the number of orphan or other children relieved without their parents in the Metropolis was— On July 1, 1878— 9,849 (of whom 9,265 were in the workhouse) On July 1, 1879-10,179 (of whom 9,629 were in the workhouse) The number of orphan and deserted children chargeable in Scotland was—

On May 14, 1878-5,985; and

On May 14, 1879-6,239.

So that the number of orphan and deserted children relieved in Scotland is really not much more than one-half of the number relieved in London.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to point out once more that 'close habitual and vigilant supervision is the key-note of the system;' and yet this is a matter that cannot be too frequently insisted on. That the system of boarding-out, unless stringent and vigilant precautions are taken, may become a system of baby-farming,' is not to be denied. Mr. Tufnell asserts that such cases are numerous.' I can only say that during the twelve years I have been Secretary to the Board not one case of the kind, to the best of my recollection, has been brought before us.

C. O. Reporter, Jan. 22, 1880.

inspectors, and, with hardly an exception, the officials who had enjoyed the best opportunities of judging expressed themselves warmly in its favour. I am decidedly satisfied,' the inspector of Greenock remarked, in a letter which may be taken as a sample of the rest,

with the results obtained by the boarding-out system. In the first place, the physical development of the children is more effectually secured. As is well known, many of the children who fall on the board for support are of a delicate, diseased constitution; to these, removal to the country brings strength, health, and activity. In my experience of the administration of the poor-law for the last twenty-five years, I have found that boarding in the poorhouse or similar institutions has never produced these results. Another beneficial result to the children themselves is the improved moral training they receive when boarded out, as compared with their up-bringing in a poorhouse. The parochial authorities here select thoroughly respectable, good-living people as nurses. Children placed in close companionship with such guardians, daily witnessing their exemplary conduct and consistent lives, and trained to habits of industry, economy, and sobriety under their care, cannot fail to be influenced for good; and in after-life it is a very rare occurrence to hear of them again as paupers.

It was natural enough that poor-law reformers south of the Tweed should be anxious to secure a trial for a system which had worked so advantageously in the North. Mrs. Nassau Senior, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Miss Hill, and others, strenuously exerted themselves to induce the authorities to adopt it. A measure of success attended their efforts; and I was under the impression that it was slowly but surely making way among the English unions. But Sir Charles Trevelyan informs me that its general introduction is still bitterly resisted by the advocates of workhouse and district schools; and he has sent me a correspondence which has lately appeared in 'The Charity Organisation Reporter,' between Mr. Tufnell and his friends. on the one hand, and the advocates of boarding-out on the other. "There would be real public advantage,' Sir Charles is good enough to say

in your closing the correspondence with a letter giving a short general view of the system and its results in Scotland; for all admit that it has been carried on there on a scale and for a length of time to make it a real example to England. . . . A large number of persons interested in such questions in England are watching this trial of strength with the avowed prominent antagonist of what is to us a new institution, and its fate in these southern parts will therefore in some considerable degree depend upon the result of the correspondence.

The subject, however, proved too large for a letter, and the present paper may possibly be accepted as my reply to the appeal.

The objections taken by Mr. Tufnell to the Scotch system were dealt with by me in the volume to which I have referred (pp. 58-66); and on looking at the correspondence in the Reporter,' I find that he has reproduced in a vague general way most of the charges which he formerly made, and which I fancied had been conclusively

disposed of. These, in so far as I am concerned, must be allowed to die a natural death,—if a writer on social economics will not look at the facts as they are presented in official documents, but only at the 'facts' as they are evolved out of his own consciousness, there is nothing more to be said. The main contention that boarding-out increases the number of pauper children, by inducing relatives to throw them upon the parish with the view of getting them back with a weekly stipend,' entirely broke down. It was proved that in general the children are not boarded with relatives; that when boarded with relatives strict inquiry is made, and the test applied, before any assistance is given; and that the number of orphan and deserted children in Scotland supported by the rates is, when compared with England, exceptionally small. The more the figures are examined the more reckless and unwarranted, I venture to think, will such accusations appear; but the one considerable objection now mainly insisted on, viz.—the failure of the system when tested by its results-is one to which from the nature of the case it is hardly possible to offer any perfectly conclusive reply.

Mr. Tufnell says:—

The only outcome yet published of the boarding-out system comes from Scotland, where it has been long tried, and where it appears that of 900 boarded-out children 5 per cent. had failed. Now, this is a very large percentage-far larger than the outcome of the district, or even the small workhouse schools. These 900 children in Scotland are all orphans, and of that class never more than per cent. fail from the English district schools. The whole number of failures in the district schools is 3 per cent., of which I have given numerous proofs in the paper I read before the Social Science Congress in 1878, which I see you quote. It is well known by all conversant with the education of pauper children that the orphans almost invariably turn out well; the real difficulty arises with those who have parents, and are constantly fluctuating, and of these, the only really difficult class to manage, the boarding-out system takes no notice."

Mr. Tufnell contrasts the Scotch with the London pauperism; and, through the courtesy of the Local Government Board, I am able to give the latest figures. The estimated population of London is about equal to that of Scotland, and the number of orphan or other children relieved without their parents in the Metropolis was—

On July 1, 1878— 9,849 (of whom 9,265 were in the workhouse) On July 1, 1879-10,179 (of whom 9,629 were in the workhouse) The number of orphan and deserted children chargeable in Scotland was—

On May 14, 1878-5,985; and

On May 14, 1879-6,239.

So that the number of orphan and deserted children relieved in Scotland is really not much more than one-half of the number relieved in London.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to point out once more that 'close habitual and vigilant supervision is the key-note of the system;' and yet this is a matter that cannot be too frequently insisted on. That the system of boarding-out, unless stringent and vigilant precautions are taken, may become a system of baby-farming,' is not to be denied. Mr. Tufnell asserts that such cases are numerous.' I can only say that during the twelve years I have been Secretary to the Board not one case of the kind, to the best of my recollection, has been brought before us.

་

6

C. O. Reporter, Jan. 22, 1880.