[202] The possibility was once barely mentioned in 1837 of the one "common workhouse establishment" consisting "of a selection of the better workhouses now existing in each union," instead of concentrating "all the necessary accommodation in one workhouse situated in the centre of the union" (Third Annual Report, 1837, p. 27.) _See also_ the reference to this possibility in the Instructional Letter sent in that year to each new Board of Guardians (_ibid._ p. 82). In June 1837, the Central Authority said that it had always preferred one central workhouse, but had sometimes allowed existing ones to remain. Its two years' experience had now confirmed it in its belief that one central workhouse was better (Letter to Newcastle Board of Guardians, 20th June 1837).
Two years later, in describing, with praise, "the consolidation of workhouse establishments" which had been going on in Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Central Authority observes "that very few will ultimately find it desirable to retain more than one establishment" (Fifth Annual Report, 1839, p. 29). In the Special Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, it is pointed out, as evidence that the Central Authority had not yet had time to put its policy completely into execution, that there were "still about seventy unions in which a central workhouse" had "not yet been built." (Report on the Further Amendment of the Poor Law, 1839, p. 7.)
It is not easy to discover what policy was laid down as to the site and character of the new general workhouse thus prescribed. There was no Special or General Order, and apparently no paper of rules or suggestions, giving any direction as to the position to be chosen, the surroundings to be preferred, or even the area to be obtained. Nothing was prescribed as to the character of the building, the cubic space to be provided for each inmate, the sanitary arrangements, or the structural provision for classification by sex, age, character or condition. To some extent this lack of any statement of policy may have been supplied by oral explanations in the process of sanctioning the building plans. This hardly applies, however, to the choice of a site; and we cannot discover from any published document whether the Central Authority thought it preferable that the union workhouse should be located in the crowded streets of a populous city or in a pleasant rural district. The only help that seems to have been afforded was the publication in 1835 of some pictures and diagrams of suggested workhouses.[203] From these we may infer that the Central Authority had adopted as its policy the erection of the same "low, cheap, homely (?) building"--bearing no little resemblance to the prison plans of the period--with which Sir Francis Head was covering East Kent.