As to the question of removing workhouses out of London, which has lately been suggested in some quarters, I would only remark that from my experience such a change would tend to make them still more dreaded than they are at present; the main objection being, that the poor would be more out of reach of their friends, whose visits in many cases can be their only consolation. And here I cannot help remarking on the cruelty of refusing admission to visitors on Sundays, a very general practice in London, that being the only day on which working people can visit their friends. I have known even a clergyman refused admission to a poor sick woman twice on a Sunday, and the custom leads to great and unnecessary cruelty. In conclusion, it may be useful to quote a few of the rules of the Poor-Law Board, that it may be seen how far they are to blame for the many grievances we have been considering, especially in this case of the visiting, for which I think the guardians are clearly responsible.
"Any person may visit any pauper in the workhouse by permission of the master or matron, subject to such conditions and restrictions as the guardians may prescribe," and in a note it is added—"This article allows any pauper to receive the visit of a stranger, but requires that, except in the case of a sick pauper, the interview shall take place in a separate room, and in presence of the master or matron." The reasons for this are then given, and are obvious—such as the fear of the introduction of spirits by visitors—the dangers of male visitors to the women, and of private interviews; "accordingly this restriction is not intended to offer any obstacle to the innocent and proper visits of relations and friends. It is desirable that there should be fixed days of the week on which visits should be allowed, and that they should not, in general, be visited on other days, except in cases of sickness and necessity." Surely these rules could never have been intended to be applied to such cases of refusal as those above mentioned! Is not a discretion expressly allowed to the officials by the following explanation? "Under this article the guardians may permit the visit of any person for any lawful purpose to any sick pauper inmate, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they may think fit to impose." And as to the refusal to lend books, it is said that the "prohibition extends only to books of an improper tendency, or likely to produce insubordination." The rules require the utmost care to be exercised in the selection of officials, especially of the master and matron; it would be instructive and almost amusing in some cases (if the matter were not too serious), to obtain information as to the previous training and occupations of these superintendents of our London workhouses alone; the variety would be great, but the total unfitness as to habits and education, and formation of character
