Page:Workhouses and women's work.djvu/54

 that any persons who can work, if ever so little, should live in continual idleness, and consequent misery. If there was more time for discrimination and individual knowledge on the part of the matron, there would he many of the aged found able to do small jobs of work, who are not able to go into the work-room. In one London union the master kindly and judiciously employs the men in doing all the work of repairs, &c., required in the house, such as painting, white-washing, carpentering, and a large expense is thus saved to the parish.

It seems to be always considered a virtue that all are treated alike in workhouses, without distinction of classes or individuals. But is it really right and just that it should be so? Why should not some difference be made between the mere pauper, and those who have been housekeepers, and therefore ratepayers in the parish? Such persons are here and there fortunate enough to obtain admission into almshouses, some of which are of a very superior description, but the few only can hope for this refuge for their last days. As it is not considered a crime in those who accept the charity of an almshouse, why should not some better treatment be reserved for those of the same class who are reduced to accept the charity of a workhouse, and who have in their turn contributed to the support of the poor in their parish? There would be no jealousy caused by such a proceeding, for all would see the justice of it, and know it was those only who had formerly been in the position of householders who received superior privileges. I think it is impossible to deny that unavoidable misfortune may overtake this class as well as every other of the community. By one of the poor-law rules, "the appointment of an honest and efficient porter is of the utmost importance." Of the behaviour of some of these officials, the tales I could tell would hardly be believed. I have myself been subjected to the rudest treatment when, on the appointment of a new one, I have not been known. Another lady was treated even worse. She asked one day to speak to the chaplain about a patient whom she visited, when she was told by the porter that "the chaplain did not see young women at the workhouse—if she wished to see him she must go to his own house!" I only mention these instances of coarseness and vulgarity, because I wish to show the tone and spirit which pervade these institutions, and if such is the treatment of ladies, what must that of the poor be? But such conduct is not confined to porters. In one instance a lady went as usual to visit a poor old friend who was dying, when the master told her she could only go on the visiting days (to the sick such rules are ordered to be dispensed with), and on her remonstrating, he said, "Mrs, R. might be interesting to her, but she was no more to him than the others, and she could only go once a week to see her."