those who read between the lines have little difficulty in grasping its meaning, yet it does not speak out in language intelligible to the average citizen who knows little about the Poor Law. In this respect it compares unfavourably with the older Report, which is conspicuous for its masterly analysis of human nature, and for the clearness and preciseness of its conclusions. But at least it cannot be said that the majority, whatever the form in which their Report is presented, and whatever the result of their recommendations, if adopted, might be, have "abandoned the principles of 1834." They hold fast to dispauperisation and the preservation of independence. They accept the principle of "less eligibility" and of destitution as a qualification for public relief. They insist upon the administration of the Poor Law by a separate and homogeneous branch of the public service to be guided by these principles and carried out by a special and independent organisation. It is clear, then, that the Majority Report neither supersedes the 1834 Report nor, though it modifies its methods, does it question its conclusions.
When we come to consider the Minority Report, we are on altogether different ground. That Report definitely and frankly breaks with all tradition, and demands the repeal of all Poor Law legislation subsequent to 43rd Elizabeth. It is, therefore, in so far as it is constructive, a totally new proposal based upon no previous experience. No more, however, need be said about it here as it is dealt with fully in the following chapter.
The problem of pauperism is one which has no place in the economy of the authors of the Minority Report. It hardly receives adequate consideration even from that of the Majority. To understand it in its true light we must turn back to the old Report of 1834, and it is safe to say that that
