date on outdoor relief; and which (as Professor Fawcett vainly objected) was far in excess of what the ordinary labourer could afford to expend on his own children.[364] "A plan," observed Mr. Fowle, "which cannot be defended on any sound principles of Poor Law."[365] "It is indeed impossible," says Mr. Mackay in this connection, "to deny that apparently every provision for pauper children may be regarded as a contravention of this rule.... Professor Fawcett's ... argument has been tacitly neglected."[366] [362] _Home Training for Pauper Children_, 1866; _Children of the State_, by Miss F. Hill, 1869; _The Advantages of the Boarding-out System_, by Col. C. W. Grant, 1869; _Pall Mall Gazette_, 10th April 1869; debate in House of Commons, 10th May 1869. [363] Poor Law Board to Evesham Union, 3rd April 1869; House of Commons, No. 176 of 1869; Circular of 30th October 1869; Twenty-first Annual Report, 1868-9, pp. 25-6; House of Commons, No. 176 of 1870, pp. 123-189; Twenty-second Annual Report, 1869-70, pp. lii-lv and 2-8. It was explained to boards of guardians that they were at liberty to board-out children within the area of the union at their own discretion, "no orders or regulations to the contrary having been issued" (Poor Law Board to Newcastle Union, 17th March 1871). [364] _Pauperism_, by H. Fawcett, 1871, pp. 79-91. [365] _The Poor Law_, by Rev. T. Fowle, 1881, p. 144. [366] _History of the English Poor Law_, by T. Mackay, 1899, vol. iii. p. 434. _E._--_The Sick_