to know how far this classification has been carried out. We know, indeed, that a proper separation would involve the rebuilding of at least half the workhouses in London. Most of them are already overcrowded, and want of space prevents any modification of existing arrangements. But even supposing there were room, the difficulties of classification are not surmounted. As it was once put, "How are we to decide who shall be placed in the back row of the stalls, and who shall be in the front row of the pit?"
The Poor Law which divides those receiving relief into the able-bodied, the sick, the aged over sixty, and the young, rather naturally leads to the presumption that all those over sixty are to be treated alike. They are no longer "able-bodied." Relaxations of discipline and a more indulgent dietary scale is prescribed for them. If tobacco or snuff is given it is given to them, and they are selected for any treats or outings which may be available. Their clothing is to be non-distinctive. In short, the sixtieth birthday is a milestone: all those who have passed it, whatever the cause of their entering the workhouse, whatever their conduct whilst in it, can legally be treated by the Guardians with certain indulgences which are prohibited for those under that age. It will probably be found that the practice of most Boards of Guardians follows the presumption of the law, and that those past sixty are in the main treated alike.
The importance of considering this question is obvious when we remember that the vast majority of the inmates of workhouses, both in London and country, are above the age of sixty, and that the overcrowding of our workhouses is chiefly due to the influx of this class of the poor. Are we to treat them all alike as a privileged
