As the policy became settled, the phrase "additional relief" was dropped; but the amount given to the husband was to depend, not on the amount or value of the work that he did, but was to be "proportioned to the wants of the applicant and his family, and should not be deemed remuneration for the work done."[146] In these cases half, at least, of the relief given to the husband was to be in kind; whilst, _according to the Orders_, no labour was required from the wife.[147] In spite of the absence from the Orders of any requirement that the wife should render any task of labour, we find the Central Authority in 1842--concerned at the earning of money by the wives (and children) of men at "parish work"--making an inconsistent suggestion. In the Minute of 31st October 1842, it is suggested that, "if it be practicable, some employment, such as picking up or carrying stones, should be provided for the wives and children. The latter precaution is peculiarly important in the manufacturing districts."[148] This requirement of labour from the wife had, up to 1847, found no embodiment in any Order. [146] Minute on Outdoor Labour Test, 31st October 1842, p. 383 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843. [147] Outdoor Labour Test Order, 30th April 1842, in Eighth Annual Report, 1842, p. 175. [148] p. 385 of Ninth Annual Report, 1843. In the 477 unions to which the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order of 1844 applied, three extensive classes of wives were, by the policy of the Central Authority, to be treated as if they were widows. (_a_) A wife deserted by her husband and having only legitimate children dependent on her could, under the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order, 1844, be given Outdoor Relief as a widow having a child dependent on her. As a matter of fact, the position of any wife living apart from her husband was better than that of a widow. The wife living apart from her husband (whether technically deserted by him or not, and whether or not he was within the union) could insist on the relief of her children, without applying for relief for herself; and if the child was below the age of seven, it could not be separated from her, _even with her own consent_; and thus the relief had to be outdoor relief. She could, moreover, send her children over seven into the workhouse without herself accompanying them, or herself becoming a pauper. On the other hand, though the local authority might, if it chose, grant outdoor relief to a widow having a child dependent on her (if she had had no illegitimate child born since her widowhood), it need not do so, and it could not relieve her dependent children, whether under seven or over, without making her a pauper.