which, as was said at the time, was fast consuming the vitals of the nation.
But we have no need to go back so far for illustrations of the intimate connection between Poor Law administration and pauperism. At the present time, wherever administration is free and easy—or, as some would call it, humane—there we find a high rate of pauperism; wherever it is careful and strict, we find a low one. Professor Fawcett's dictum that "you may have as many paupers as you choose to pay for" is no less true to-day than it was seventy years ago. The rise and fall of pauperism over the last century coincides almost exactly with the ebb and flow of administration. Of course there have been crises like the Manchester and Irish famines which have created extraordinary conditions, but in normal times every year's experience has added additional testimony to its truth. The remarkable variations in the pauperism of different Unions at the present time tell the same tale. Why is it, for example, to take the West End of London, that the pauperism of St George's, Hanover Square, is 31.3 per 1000 whilst that of Fulham, a much poorer district, is only 17.7 per 1000? Why is it, if we take the Northern district, that pauperism in Islington is 34.7 per 1000, whilst in Hackney it is only 27.9? Why is it that in the Eastern district, where there is uniformity of poverty, the pauperism of Poplar is 57.6, whilst that of Bethnal Green is only 27.4 and that of Whitechapel and St George's only 33? Or, if we compare East with West, why is it that St George's, Hanover Square, though its population is smaller, has more than 300 more paupers than Bethnal Green? There can, of course, be only one answer, namely, that these Unions have adopted different methods of administration.
The principle applies to the country as well as
