and who was therefore in receipt of an allowance during his absence, applied for outdoor relief, and it is quite possible that without that constant vigilance which is by no means universal, duplicated relief might be granted in such cases. It would appear that in many places there is not systematic co-operation between Distress Committees and the Poor Law.
Several illustrations have been given of cases in which it has been found necessary to supplement benefits under the Insurance Act by Poor Law relief, and this tendency will probably continue. It is noteworthy that it was extremely rare in old days for any member of a friendly society to apply for parish relief, and no one can fail to remark the lowering of the standard of self-reliance under the new order of things.
But more than that, an opinion has been freely expressed that there will be a tendency for panel doctors to order into the infirmary their longer and more troublesome cases. Not long ago a panel doctor in Chelsea advised a patient to apply for admission to the infirmary, not because he was destitute—it was admitted that the relatives were in a fairly comfortable position—but because in his opinion the care of the patient was too great a strain upon them. The Guardians refused, but were eventually severely censured by the coroner.
An interesting illustration of overlapping between Part II. of the Insurance Act and the Unemployed Workmen Act came recently to the notice of the writer. It is interesting because it indicates a sequence of events which certainly would not have been anticipated by the promotors of either of these Acts, and because it illustrates the failure of two public agencies permanently to improve the condition of the person assisted. In the case in question, a builder's labourer, out of work, had applied to the Distress Committee and was admitted for the prescribed period to Hollesley Bay colony. He came out when his time expired in December last. Being still without work he applied for unemployed benefit in
