much to say that there is no voting at all. The present writer was upon one occasion returned for a ward containing 5000 voters at a bye-election. He received about 230 votes; his opponent received about 50.
It has been said that Poor Law elections are a specially crucial test of local government, because administrators of the Poor Law require special qualifications of knowledge and intelligence. It may be added that they differ from other municipal authorities in that they deal directly with human beings, rather than with things, and that human nature is a dangerous plaything for amateurs. In order to gauge to some extent the existence of these qualifications in those who came forward as candidates, a large number of election addresses have been gathered and examined. The result is extremely disappointing. The addresses which exhibit any knowledge of Poor Law history or principles are insignificant in number. The majority are studiously vague. " Economy and efficiency," "humanity and kind treatment of the poor are the most frequent watchwords. Or they appeal for support on the ground of "long residence" or for other personal reasons. Where they descend to particulars there is one feature that is common to almost all of them, namely, the advocacy of outdoor relief "to prevent expenditure upon bricks and mortar and upon large and costly buildings"; "to prevent the breakingup of homes"; "to keep the poor by their own firesides." From one union comes a pictorial address: "(1) United and happy—outdoor relief; (2) Parted and pauperised—no outdoor relief." The first is a representation of an old couple sitting by the fire drinking tea; the second of a similar couple bidding good-bye to one another at the workhouse door. Another complains of
