to the towns. In such places as Bradfield, Brixworth, and Atcham, where a strict system at one time prevailed, though they have most of them reverted to less stringent methods, the rate of pauperism is still much lower than in surrounding Unions. Perhaps enough has been said by figures and illustration to show the closeness of the connection between methods of administration and pauperism; but as many people have a rooted distrust of statistics, which they say "may be made to prove anything," it may be well to submit the question to some further analysis, and to look at it, so to speak, from behind the scenes. Some years ago the Bethnal Green Board appointed a special Committee to consider their own system of out-relief, which was then what is known as a "lax" one, almost anyone who applied being able to get it, though in very small doses. This Committee took the evidence of their relieving officers and examined their books and records. The conclusions that they came to are of some general interest. In the first place, it was clear that the great majority of the cases were chronic: one relieving officer had had the same cases in his books on and off for over twenty years. Another said that 70 to 80 per cent, of his cases were chronic. Then, again, the habit of applying for relief ran in certain families and in certain streets and localities. In some cases three generations of the same family were upon the books, and there was abundant evidence of hereditary pauperism. It was contagious. "The people on the ground floor apply because the people on the upper floor are having it." In some streets the mere sight of the relieving officer brought in a crop of applications the next day. "Our visits," they said, "manufacture applications." But perhaps this is to elaborate too much what is an obvious proposi-
