View report page

243
[1910
of 8,510 per week in the 11 years 1899-1909. The matter is one of very great
importance,, not only from a ratepayers' point of view, but from that of public
health. There can be no doubt that were there less pauperism, there would
be improved health. It is difficult to understand why the number of paupers
has increased from 6,854 per week in 1899 to 10,773 in 1910, an increase of 3,919
per week. It would be sad, indeed, to think that this increase reflected the
state of business and work in the borough. Is it possible that there are other
reasons than mere slackness of work which have their influence on the excessive
pauperism which undoubtedly exists in Islington? It would be interesting to
know how many of these people have lived in Islington for say five years, for
then one might arrive at a conclusion as to whether the system of relief has
attracted the poor of other places to the borough.

Indoor Paupers. — The average number relieved each week was 5,017,
or 153 in excess of the average which obtained in the preceding year, and as
contrasted with a weekly average of 4,018 in the decennium 1900-1909.
Outdoor Paupers — On an average 5,755 were relieved in each week,
as compared with 5,612 in 1909, with 5,791 in 1908, and with a decennial
weekly average of 4,658. Of these paupers, the average number of adults was
3,721, and of children under 16 years of age 2,035.
Vagrants.—No vagrants were relieved, as the wards were closed in
January, 1909.
Children Boarded out.—On a weekly average, these numbered 106, as
compared with 107 in the preceding year. They were also 17 less than the
decennial weekly average of the years 1900-1909.
S 2