uthority as Mr Fowle, is this explained by any tendency of increased
strictness in the administration of outdoor relief, to drive would-be
recipients of outdoor relief into the workhouse.

The figures of London pauperism yield still more strange results. Here,
though the percentage of paupers to population has shown a steady
decline, the process has been so much slower than in the country that
there has been no actual fall in the number of paupers. Throughout the
whole period from 1861 to 1896 the numbers have remained about
stationary, after which they show a considerable rise. The alarming
feature in this table is the rapid rise of indoor pauperism, far more
rapid than the growth of London's population. From 1861-2 the number of
indoor paupers has grown by steady increase from 26,667 to 61,432 in
1902-3, or from a ratio of 9.5 to one of 13.4 per 1000. While the
proportion of outdoor paupers per 1000 is little more than half that of
the country as a whole, the proportion of indoor paupers is more than
twice as great. Roughly speaking, London, with less than one-sixth of
the population of the country, contains nearly one-third of the indoor
pauperism. This fact alone throws some light upon the nature of city
life. A close analysis of metropolitan workhouses discloses the fact
that the aged, infirm, and children composed the vast majority of
inmates. A very small percentage was found to be capable of actual work.
About one-third of the paupers are children, about one-tenth lunatics,
about one-half are aged, infirm, or sick. This leaves one-fifteenth as
the proportion of able-bodied male and female adults. As a commentary on
the administration of the Poor Law, these figures are eminently
satisfactory, for they prove that people who can support themselves do
not in fact obtain from public relief. But the picture has its dark
side. It shows that a very large proportion of our workers, when their
labour-power has been drained out of them, instead of obtaining a well-
earned honourable rest, are obliged to seek refuge in that asylum which
they and their class hate and despise. Whereas only 5 per cent of the
population under 60 years are paupers, the proportion is 40 per cent in
the case of those over 70. Taking the working-class only out of a
population of 952,000 above the age of 65, no fewer than 402,000, or
over 42 per cent, obtained relief in 1892. In London 221/2 per cent of the
aged poor are indoor paupers. The hardness