recipients of Poor Law relief. When we examine the figures we find that it amounts to under half a million out of some 15 millions expenditure, or 3 per cent. One-half of this is paid in respect of lunacy cases, when the relations are frequently in good positions, and almost the whole of it is voluntarily offered and paid. The amount is usually roughly assessed between Boards of Guardians and applicants for relief or their relations, and is recovered by moral suasion and appeals to self-respect and personal responsibility. An infinitesimal fraction is recovered by legal process. As a rule, when applicants refuse to repay, the onus of proving means is too hard a task for Guardians, and the matter is allowed to drop. The argument of giving relief on the basis of recovery is a favourite one at the present time, and as it is practically the principal limitation upon the relief proposals of the Minority, it is necessary to examine it narrowly, and to consider whether it is likely to be an effective check upon pauperism. We have had some recent experience in the matter. The argument is most commonly used with regard to the feeding of school children. First feed the child, it is said, and then recover from the parent. Not long ago the Local Government Board issued an Order enabling Guardians to feed school children on that basis. The Order was largely acted upon in Bradford, and of £1300 spent in meals only £3 was recovered. The London County Council are experiencing the same difficulty, and have only recovered £26 out of £34,000. This power of recovery, then, would apparently be of little effect, except in the cases of those who are comparatively affluent. The bulk of the labouring population, whose means are fluctuating and difficult to gauge, but who now contrive to support themselves and their families, and often even to put something by
