extended over every form of sorrow and sickness that can befal human nature, has not till late years thought of the incurably sick. It was probably supposed that our workhouses took this class of persons under their care, for it was known that they were not maintained in hospitals. Yet it is pitiable to think of the large number of hopelessly sick and bed-ridden who are shut up in our workhouses as they are at present constituted. The strict rules enforced in many of them as to receiving the visits of friends, is one of the reasons which causes them to be deemed little better than prisons. It has been repeatedly alleged, that if it were otherwise persons would be attracted to them, tempted to give up their homes, and thus impose upon the public charity. But at the best, and with all the improvements that can be made, there must always be a certain degree of restraint imposed upon the inmates by the rules necessary for every large establishment, which would prove a cheek upon any temptation to desert their homes. And it is said that in France the institutions which maintain many hundreds of the aged and infirm in greater comfort than is enjoyed in our workhouses, do not attract persons from their homes.[1] In England, therefore, where the love of home is pre-eminently strong, we need hardly fear that it would be the case. The regularity of hours will always be distasteful to those who have enjoyed independence all their lives; and even were the food made more palatable than it is at present, it would not be preferred to the self-chosen fare, for the sameness unavoidable in such places will always be disliked. So great is the love of liberty and choice in these matters, that working women have been known to prefer bringing their own scanty meals to their workrooms, to sharing in one general fare, though of a superior quality. In former days some provision was made for the more decent poor by the founding of almshouses, which was what may be called a "fashionable" mode of charity with our ancestors. The remarks on this subject by the late Bishop Armstrong are full of interest as bearing upon this point,[2] and give a very true and touching picture of what the piety of our ancestors accomplished, and what we, their descendants, are neglecting. But, like other regrets for the past, it is useless and utterly vain as regards a remedy for present evils, and in as far as it proposes to bring back a former state of things. We cannot revive the habits of bygone ages if we would, and we may, therefore, believe it to be undesirable, in the order of God's providence, to do so. Another condition of affairs is come into existence, and our present work is to see that we make the best of it, checking as far as possible the evil, and encouraging and calling out the good in it. A system incapable of such a process as this ought not to belong to a Christian society. There may still be here and there persons who
- ↑ See Metropolitan Workhouses, p. 44.
- ↑ Life of Bishop Armstrong, p. 191.
