principles of 1834. Moreover, almost every section of the Report, except those dealing with entirely new matter, is prefaced by a recital of the views of the 1834 Report, these views being treated as almost axiomatic. In many cases when the Commissioners propose a new departure, they take pains to show that it was either the original intention or the natural corollary of the old Report. For example, classification by workhouses instead of in workhouses was, they contend, the original intention in 1834, though it was abandoned in 1840. So, again, their proposals for bringing voluntary charity into line with the Poor Law are the natural development of the opinions of the older Commission. We may go further, and say that their recommendation for the abolition of Boards of Guardians is a reversion to the views of some of those who were mainly responsible for the Report of 1834. Sir Edwin Chadwick was never in favour of placing the administration of the Poor Law in the hands of casually elected bodies, because he said "there is no security for qualifications of which a high degree of speciality is needed for a very difficult service." When the Government of the day refused to listen to him, he prophesied that the lessons of 1834 would have to be learnt over again, and that is the present position. The Majority Report accepts the doctrine of "less eligibility" again and again in scattered sentences, though it is to be regretted that it does not put it forward as a separate recommendation. Both here and elsewhere its language might have been more clear and definite, and it might have left less to be inferred by that great body of readers who, coming fresh to the subject, will look to it for guidance. It seems, for example, to be a serious omission that in its chapter upon the causes of pauperism it submits the question to
