edith abbott - english poor-law reform

8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform

1/14

English Poor-Law ReformAuthor(s): Edith AbbottSource: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan., 1911), pp. 47-59Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1820483.

Accessed: 14/05/2013 12:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal

of Political Economy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.162.246.130 on Tue, 14 May 2013 12:27:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1820483?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1820483?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/14

ENGLISH

POOR-LAW

REFORM

It is now nearly wo years sincethe reports f theRoyal

Commission

n the Poor Laws and the

Relief

of

Distresswere

given to the

public. The

recommendations

f

the commission

were

awaited witheager

interest

n this

country

s

well

as

in

England, nd

the reports ave been

carefully tudied

nd widely

quotedby

American

tudents

f

economic nd social conditions.

It

is notnecessary t this

ate day to

undertake n

account

of

the workof thecommission, uta review f theprogresswhich

has been

made towardpoor-law

reform ince the

issue of the

reportsmay

be of interest.

It should

perhaps be

recalled that in February,

909, the

commission

ave

to

thepublic

not

one

but two

reports:

i) a

majority

eport ignedby

the chairman,

ord GeorgeHamilton,

and

thirteen

thermembers,ncluding he

severalrepresentatives

of the local Governmentoard,ProfessorWilliamSmart, nd

the well-known

harity

Organizationists,

Miss Octavia

Hill,

Mrs.

Bosanquet,

nd Mr. C. S. Loch;

(2) a

minority eport

signedby the

remaining

ourmembers f the

commission, ev.

H. Russell Wakefield,

ow the dean

of Norwich,Mr. Francis

Chandler, well-known

rade

Unionist,

Mr. George

Lansbury,

a

Progressive

member

f the London

County

Council, nd Mrs.

SidneyWebb,who is understood o have donetheactualwriting

of

thereport.1

It may be well also to

recallthat he

reports f the majority

and

minority

ere both

considered

evolutionary,nd thatthey

agreed like n condemning

hepresent

ystem nd in

recommend-

ing the

abolition f the

boards of

guardians, f the "union" as

the

administrativenit,

and of thepresentmixed

work-house.

1

The dean

of Norwich, in a

public address

to the Bradford Guild of Help,

November

23,

9gog,

referring to

a statement that the minority

report

had

"a

witchery

of

literary style

about

it," said, by way of

comment,

"The

witchery

in

the

case is that

of

Mrs.

Sidney Webb,

because whilst I

made,

I

frankly admit,

a

large number of

suggestions

.

. .

.

the

perfect

writing

was

not

from me."

He

also

added,

"To be

fair

to the

majority report

it

mIust

be

remembered

that

it

was

written

by

a

great

many

people.

47

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

48

JOURNAL OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY

Although oth

reports

greed

n thissweeping

ondemnation

f

theold

system,

sharp ine

of disagreement

ppearedn regard

o

themethod f reform. The majority roposed o substituteor

the

presentboards

of guardians,

a systemof

nexv ad

hoc

authorities

half of whose

members

were to

be members

of the

local County

Council

or County

Borough

Council,

and

the otherhalf, "persons

xperienced

n the ocal administration

of public ssistance

r other

ognatework."

These

new

statutory

committees,

lhich

ere tobe called

"Public

AssistanceAuthori-

ties,"weretherefore ot to be, as are the presentBoards of

Guardians,

directly lected

for that

purpose.

Opposing

these

"majority"

lans for

reform, he

minority

rged

with weeping

vigor

the complete

break-up f the

Pioor

Law," and instead

of

the

creation f

a

new ad

hoc authority

or he relief

f

desti-

tution, heyproposed

hat

the functions

f

the

old Boards

of

Guardians

houldbe divided

among

various committees

f

the

county ouncils.2

To an

outsider,

t seemed that

neither

majority

nor mi-

nority

ould

expect

to carry

all

of its

particular

cheme,

but

with

so

thorough

n

agreement

egarding

he

abuses

of the

presentystem,

t

did

not seemtoo

much o

hope that

common

policy

f

compromisemight

e adopted.

The months hat

have

elapsed,

however,

ave

shownthe futility

f

this hope.

Those

interestedn thecause of poor-law eform ave withdrawnnto

bitterly pposing

camps,

each

emphasizing

ll

the

points

in

disagreement

nd

failing

to seize

the

opportunity

o

impress

upon

the

public

mind

that

much

of what could

be done in

the

way

of

reform

would be

acceptable

o both.

The

controversy

hich

has

been

provoked

by

the

publica-

tion

of the

reports

as resulted

n

the

formation

f

three

fairly

8

That is, the transferof the responsibility or the care of the various

classes

of

persons

now relieved

by

the

Board of

Guardians

to the

authorities

which

the

minority

escribe as

"dealing

with the causes of destitution-the

chil-

dren

to the

local educational

authority,

he

sick

and infirm o the local

health

authority,

he feeble minded

and

mentally

defective

o

the local

lunacy authority,

and

the

pensionable

aged

to

the

local

pension

authority.

These four

authorities

already exist,

as

Committees

f

County

and

CountyBorough

Councils.

For

all

varieties

of the able-bodied and

unemployed,

new

national

authority

s recom-

mended."



4/14

ENGLISH POOR-LAW

REFORM

49

well-defined

ropagandist

rganizations,

ach with

policy

f

its

own. The

first

n order

of

formation

s

that

representing

he

viewsof theminority.Mr. and Mrs. SidneyWebb,by virtue

of Mrs.

Webb's work

as

a member

f

the

commission,

laimed

the right

of

reissuing he

minority

eport

hrough heir

own

publishers,nd

also

of

circulating

cheap reprint

hrough

he

agency of

the Fabian

Society.

They

were not

content,

ow-

ever,

with

merely lacingtheir

reportwithin

asy

reach

of

the

public.

They

were

determined

o

make

people

read

t,

talk

bout

it, understandt, and believe n it, so thatwhen thetime was

ripefor

egislation

minority" iews

should

prevail. With

this

object

n view they

formed committee

hich

t once

began an

active

proselyting

ampaign.

This

organizationwas

originally

called the

"National

Committee

o

Promote

he

Break-up

f

the

Poor

Law,"'3but

a

shrewd bserver

ointed

out

that the

con-

servative

ritish abit f

mind s

instinctivelypposed

o "break-

ingthings p," and thepromotersf theneworganizationwere

quick

to

see

an

advantage

n

adopting name

which

would

sug-

gest a

new

constructive

olicy

rather hanthe

destructionf an

ancient

nstitution.

The name

of the

new

organization

was

therefore

hanged,

nd, as

the"National

Committeeorthe

Pre-

vention of

Destitution,"

t has

succeeded in

enrollingmore

than

25,000

members. n

February f last year

bill

embodying

therecommendationsf theminorityeportwas introducednto

the

House of

Commons,4

nd

although

hebill failed

o pass,

ts

3 The

Crusade,

a

monthly

ournal, and

other

publications of

this

committee,

including

pamphlets

by Mrs.

Webb,

Sir John

Gorst,

the

dean of

Norwich,

and

others,

may be

obtained

from

the

committee's

London

headquarters,

37 Norfolk

St.,

Strand,

London.

4"A

Bill

to

Provide for

the

Effectual

Prevention of

Destitution,

and the

Better

Organization

of

Public

Assistance"

is the

descriptiongiven

in the

memo-

randumwhich accompanies it. The bill is divided into four parts: The first

part

contains

general

provisions,

togetherwith

the

establishment

of a

new

department

nder a

ministerfor

labor.

The second

part

provides for the

abo-

lition of

the

boards of

guardians,

and the

transfer

of

all provision

of

public

assistance for

the

non-able-bodiedwhether

children,

he sick and

infirm, he aged,

or

the

mentally

defective) to

the

County,

or

County

Borough

Council,

with

suit-

able

arrangements or the

City

of London,

and

the

metropolitan

oroughcouncils

of

the more

populousplaces. The third

part describes

the powers

and

duties

of

the

ministerfor

labor,

and

provides

for

the abolition of

distress

committees,



5/14

50

JOU11TRNAL

F POLITICAL

ECONOMY

introduction

s an evidence

f

the fact hat he campaign

arried

on by the

national

ommittee

s one

which

has a practical

bject

in view.

It was inevitable

hat the canmpaign

f theminority

hould

provoke

definite esponse

rom

he

mnajority,

nd

this

response

to,ok hape

in the formation

f another

new

society

alled

the

National

Poor-Law Reform

Association.

As

the narmemplies,

its object

s the reform

f

existing

oor-lawv

dmiinistration,

ut

the members,

nstead

of beingpledged

o everyproposal

of

the

najorityreport,only profess to be "in agreementwith its

general

pirit

nd

trend."

In

a

formal peechto

the

members

of

this

new organization

n

the occasion

of

their

first

meeting,

Lord

GeorgeHamilton,

he chairman

f the

Royal

Commission,

discussed

the

meaning

of the minority

eport.5

It was,

he

said,

with

great

regret

hat

he and

his

colleagues

found hem-

selves

forced

o form

he

new organization,

or

they

had

hoped

that fter hepublicationf two reports he public,

in

accordancewith

invariable

practice,

would have

been

allowed

without

prejudice

or

predilection

o form

their own

opinionsupon

the respective

merits

f

the two sets of proposals.

But the

authors f

theminority eport

had thought

therwise,

nd

from

he day

that

Mr. and

M\lrs.

idney

Webb

claimed

the

copyright

f the minority

eport,

n

energetic

nd

ubiquitous

agitation,

ided

by

all

the

socialist organizations

n the

country,

was set

in motion

to

advertiseand

exploitthe proposals

of

the

minority

nd to

belittle he reforms dvocatedby the majority.

It was pointed

ut

that, n view

of

the serious

condition

n

certain

parts

of

the country,

ny

proposals

which were

likely

to effect lasting mprovement

ould

be

welcomed

rom

what-

ever

body they

came

and that the

genesis

of reform

was

of

littlemoment,

provided

he reform

e

efficientnd

suitable."

It was,

however,

laimed hat

the

new

society

for the break-up

of the Pooir Laxvwas a distinct oliticalorganization ormed

and

the transfer

of all matters

affecting unemiployment

and

the

regulation

of

the

hours

and

conditions

of labor

to

the

department

of the minister

for labor.

The

fourth part

applies

the bill to

Scotland.

5

What

the

Minority

Report

Means,

and other

publications

of the

associa-

tion,

including

pamphlets

by

Mr. C. S. Loch,

Mrs.

Bosanquet,

and others,

may

be

obtained

from the secretary

of

the

National Poor-Law

Reform

Association,

5

Adam

Street,

Adelphi,

London,

W.C.



6/14

ENGLISH POOR-LAW

REFORM

5I

for the special purpose

of

"promoting ery advanced,

f not

revolutionaryhanges

n

society,"

nd

that,

f the

public

once

becameconvinced hatthe reform f the Poor Law was only

a questionbetween

he

adoption

of

the

minority eport

nd a

co(ntinuance

f

the present ystem, large

number

f

persons

would

prefer

o

have

things

n

their

existing

tate

rather han

"embark

n so

hazardous,

o

uncontrollable,

nd so

costly

an

adventure."

The

purpose

f

the

opposing ociety

was to

make

morewidely

known

he

fact

hatthere

was another

cheme

up-

ported by high official nd administrativeuthorities,which

would

accomplish

ll that the

minority

cheme

proposed

and

would

at

the same time

"wage

war

against

destitution nd

misery,not by encouraging

ll comers to

be

dependent pon

the state,

but

by promotingndependence,

utual

aid,

and co-

operation."

It was pointed

out by an intelligent

ritic soon after the

findingsf the commissionwere givento the publicthatthe

wholesale

condemnation

f

the

present ystem

nd

particularly

of

present

methods f

administration,

hich

s

to be

found

n

both

minority

nd

majorityreports,

would

be

sure

to cause

much

heart

burning. Serious opposition

romthe Boards

of

Guardians

was to

be

expected

nd one

of

the

arly

manifestations

of their

resentmentas been

the

formation.

f

a

third

ociety,

the

National Committee

or Poor-Law

Reform,

which

proposes

a

via tertia alled by ts promotershe "policy f reform nstead

of revolution." The case

for

the

guardians

s

presentedn the

small

volume,

Poor

Law Reform via tertia,by Sir William

Chance,6

who is

known

as an able

and

experienced oor-law

administrator.

n

this

volume, he principles nd proposalsof

the

minority eport

re

bitterlypposedbecause of their ocial-

istic

tendencies,

nd it is claimed hat "if the recommendations

of

the report re carried ut the socialistic tate will have come

into

being."

On the other

hand, although he majority eport

is

commended,

nd

although ir William Chance and the mem-

bers

of his

organization elieve hatreformsn poor-law dmin-

6Poor Law Reform via tertia: The Case for the

Guardians; by Sir William

Chance.

London:

P. S. King

&

Son,

i9io.

8vo, pp. 95.



7/14

52 JOURNAL

OF

POLITICAL

ECONOMY

istration re urgently

needed, they are convinced that the

poor-law ystem equires

eform nly

n

its administration,ot

in its principles. They believe thatthe administrativehange

proposed y the "majority"

ommissioners,.e.,

a clean sweepof

the Boards of Guardians

and the creation

of newr d hoc

authorities,

s far too

radical

a

change and

that the County

Councils

cannot

successfully

ndertake

he

new duties

which

"the majority"

wish to

hand over

to

them.

The

via

mnedia

of Miss Octava

Hill

is

commended

s a

desirable

substi--

tute for the majorityplan, and the following xtract from

her memorandums quoted as embodying he

views of those

intelligent guardians

of

the poor"

who

urge

a

plan more

conservative

han

that

proposed n eitherreploirt.

Miss Hill's

memorandumlaims

that a statutory ommittee

f the County

Council

s

open

to the

following bjections:

(i)

It tends to

the municipalization

f the Poor Law;

(2) it

is

comparatively

untriedmachinery; 3) it is at best composedmainly f those

elected

for otherduties nd

alreadyover-weighted

ith work."

A

source of much

confusion n the present ituation s the

partisan

nd at times crimoniouspirit

which

prevails

n

both

majority

nd minority amps-an unwillingness

o be just to

the other ide,

which

cannot

fail to

react

unfavorably pon

the

cause

of

reform. This

seeming nability

o

make a fair

pres-

entation f the case is well illustratedn thenew volumeby

Mr. and

Mrs.

SidneyWebb entitled nglish

Poor

Law

Policy.7

The

theory pon

which Mr. and

Mrs

Webb have built

for so

long, that "nothing

f

today

can

really

be

understoodwithout

its

history,"

as

placed

many

tudents

nder

lasting

bligation

to

them.

But

this new

volume,

which

purports

o be a

his-

torical

one

tracing

he

changes

n

Englishpoor-lawpolicy

ince

1834

and attemptingo summarizets present tatus,mustbe a

disappointment

o

those

who

have

learned

to

respect

he

fine

spirit

f

scientificnvestigation

hich

has

brought

uch

illumi-

nating

ontributions

o the

history

f

English

ocal

government

and

social conditions.

7English

Poor Law Policy, by

Sidney

and Beatrice

Webb.

London:

Long-

mans,

Green & Co.,

I9IO.

Svo,

pp.

xii+379.



8/14

ENGLISH

POOR-LAW

REFORM

53

Only

fourof

the

eight

hapters

f

English

Poor

Law

Policy

are really

histoirical.

The

latter

half of

the

book

deals with

present-dayuestionsndis directly oncerned ith he gitation

for

reform

hich s

in

progress.There

are

chapters ealing

with

the"Principles

f

I907,"

the

majority

eport,

he

minorityeport,

and, finally, summary

nd

conclusion. It

is

the earlier

chap-

ters

for

which

hebook s

chiefly

aluable.

A

great

deal

of

docu-

mentary

material,

fficial

ecordsof all sorts,

statutes, rders,

circulars, nd

minutes,

ere carefully xamined nder

he direc-

tionof Mr. and Mrs. Webb,and theanalysisof thismaterial

constitutes

n

interesting

ddition

o

the

poor-law

history f the

nineteenth

entury.

The

application

if

heso-called

rinciples

f

I834, "national

uniformity,"less

eligibility,"nd

the "work-

house

system,"

s

carefully

ollowed.

It is

pointed

ut

that here

was

no

drastic

pplication

f

these

principles ven

in

the

period

of

thepoor-law

ommissioners.8 or

example, lthough

he om-

missionerstrove ncessantlyo insistupon theprinciple f

making

the

condition f the

able-bodiedpauper

less eligiblethan that of

the lowest

class of

-independentaborer, y I847

theyhad given

up attempt-

ing to secure

this less eligible

state by giving ess food,

inferior lothing,

worse

accommodation, r shorterhours of

sleep than those

enjoyed by

8

Very

interesting

s the

reason

suggested

for

the

earlyneglect of

the

recom-

mendationof the

commissionof

I834 with

regard to

the

institutional

ccommo-

dation of paupers. "Instead of a series of separate institutions ppropriately

organized

and equipped for

the

several

classes of the

pauper

population, he

aged

and

infirm,

he children

and

adult,

able-bodied, the

central

authorityhad

got

established

n

nearly

everyunion,one general

work-house;nearly

everywhere he

same

cheap, homely

building,

with one

common

regime,

under one

management,

for

all

classes

of

paupers."

The

justification

or

the

policy

was the

confident x-

pectation, n

I838,

that the

use

of

the

work-housewas only

to serve

as a

"test"

which

the

applicants

would not

pass

and

that

there

was

accordingly

no

need to

regard the work-house s a

continuing ome.

Harriet

Martineau

n her Poor

Law

Tales shows "the complete success of an absolutely nflexible ffer f 'the house'

to

every applicant

without

exception;

the result

being

an

entirely

depauperized

parish,

and

the overseer

turning

the

key

in

the

door

of

an

absolutely

empty

work-house."

It is not until

nearly

a

quarter

of

a

century

after

I834 that it

became

recognized

that the work-house

was

not

merely "test

of

destitutionfor

the

able-bodied

which

they

were not

expected

to

endure,

but

the

continuing

home

of

large

classes of

helpless

and not

otherwise

than

innocent

persons."

For this

very

interesting

iscussion of the work-houses ee

chap. ii,

sec.

K, and

chap.

iii

sec.

J.



9/14

54 JOURNAL OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY

the

average

laborer. The

commissioners

ere

[then]

attemptingo secure

this

less

eligible

tate

by

monotonous

oil,

ack of all

recreation,

total ab-

senceof anymental timulus,nd,wherepossible, yconfinementithin he

work-house

walls.

It

is, however,

n

the ater

rather han n

earlier

hapters hat

Mr. and Mrs. Webb are

disappointing.

n

the

brief hapter n

"The

Principles

f

1907,"

we

find he climax of

the argument.

The practical bandonmentf

the

old

principles

s

described9nd

certainnew

principles

which the authors

profess

to

have

dis-

coveredare discussed. These so-called"new principles" re

(i)

the Principle

f

Curative reatment,"2) the"Principle f

Universal

Provision,"

term

used

to

describe he

provision y

thestate

of

particular

ervices or ll who

will

accept hem, uch

as

vaccination, anitation,

ducation,

nd

the

like,and

(3)

the

"Principleof Clompulsion"

hich,while not

altogether ew, is

said

to

be

new

n

the

scope

of its

application.

The casewhichMr.andMrs. Webb makeout forthesenew

principless, unfortunately,ot a very trong

ne,

and

has

per-

haps justly subjected hem

o

some

very

searching

riticisms.'0

"It is pointed

out

that

(i)

the

principle

of

national uniformity,

.e.,

of

identity

of treatment

for

each class

of destitute

persons from

one end

of

the

kingdom

to

the other

for

the

purpose

of reducing

the "perpetual

shiftingfrom

parish

to parish,"

is

in

practice

abandoned

with

the single exception

of

the

vagrant or wayfaringclass;

(2)

the principleof less eligibilitywhich is often

regarded

as the

root

principle

of the

reforms

of

I834 has also been

abandoned

with regard

to all classes except

able-bodiedmen

and their dependents.

It

is

pointed

out that

the central

authority

has de facto

abandoned

the principle

of

less

eligibility.

It

prescribes

merely

a

policy

of

"adequacy"

of

maintenance

according

to the actual requirements

f

each case viewed

from

the

standpoint

of

modern

physiology,

rrespective

f whetherthe maintenance

s

at home

or

in

an

institution.

This,

it

is

clear,

is

much above the standard

attained by the lowest

grade

of

independent

aborer.

With regard

to

wayfarers

nd

vagrants,

the

appli-

cation of the principlegoes farther han was originallycontemplated nd "even

this

'less eligible'

relief is

accompanied

by compulsory

detention and

an

act

of

hard

labor of

monotonous

nd

disagreeable

character";

(3)

the

principle

known

as the

Work-houseSystem-the

"offer

f the House,"

or the complete

ubstitution

of

indoor

for

outdoor

relief-is

the policy of the

central authority

now

for

wayfarers

nd vagrants

only.

Alternative

methods

of relief have been

devised

and are

preferred

or

other classes.

10

See,

for

example,

Mrs.

Bosanquet's

somewhat personal

attack

on this

chapter

n an article

in the Econonmic Joutrnal,

June,

igIo.



10/14

ENGLISH

POOR-LAW

REFORM

55

Increasing

mphasis s

undoubtedly

eing

aid on curative

reat-

ment, ut

t

s

surely oling

ery

far

to relate

o the

Poor Law

the

provision f such services s education nd vaccination,nd the

"principle f

compulsion"

s

in the same field

nly

n

unrealized

hope. Their

discussion f

the contrast etween

834

and

I907

is,

however,

nteresting

nd

suggestive.

n

general

t s

said that

n

contrast

o the

834

principles,

hich

ssumed

he

"non-responsi-

bility

f

the

ommunity

or

nythingeyond

eeping

he

destitute

applicant

live,"the

principles

f

today

embody

hedoctrine f

a

mutualobligationbetween he individual nd the community.

The

universal

maintenance

f

a

definite inimumf

civilized ife

becomes

he

oint

responsibility

f

an

indissoluble

artnership."

It

should

be added,

too, that

theyfind

t

necessary

o

pointout

that

thesenew

principles

f

I907,

which

they

believe

hey

have

discovered

n

modern

poor-law

policy,

have been

unconsciously

adopted

nd

would

probably

otbe

recognized

y

the

officials ho

are supposed o be fosteringhem. "There is, in fact, oday,

sort of

'No-man's Land' in

Poor-Law

administration,n

which

the

principles

f

I834 have

beende

facto

abandoned,

ithout

he

principles

f

1907

beingconsciously

ubstituted.

Owing to

this

laclc

of

central

direction"

hey

find

diversitywithout

elibera-

tion,

ndulgence

ithout

ure,

nd

relief

without

iscipline."

The

remaining ortion

f

the book is an

ex

parte

documlent

supportingheproposals f theminority eport. An attempts

made to

show "the

mutual

ncompatibility"

f the

reforms

ro-

posed

by

the

majority. The

minority

annot

believethat

the

najorityhave

really

dvanced

beyond he

principles

f i834

SO

long

as

they

still

wish to

see

a

general

destitution

uthority

maintained.

On the

other

hand, t is

claimed

hat the

minority

report

carries he

so-called

principles f

1907'

to

their ogical

conclusion nd at the same timediscovers o,us theunifying

principle n

whichthey

have been

unconscilouslyased,

and

by

which lone

their

ossible

ostliness

an be

limited nd

justified."

The

essential

unfairness f this

volume and

in fact of

the

whole

"minority"

ampaign lies

in

the

assumption

hat

the

minority

ave a

complete

monopoly

f

the

plea

for

the

preven-

tion

f

destitution,

hereas

ny

fair-minded

eader

must

ee that



11/14

56

JOURNAL

OF

POLITICAL

ECONOMY

thevalue

of

preventive

olicies

s everywhere

mphasized

ythe

majority

nd that

practical

proposals

of

preventive

measures

loom large in themajorityreport. It is, to say the least,an

unfair

tactical

dvantage

forthe

minority

o

urge and

exploit

the "principle

fprevention"

s if

it were

all their wn.

Sol

far

as the

administrative

lans

of

the

minority

re

concerned,

t

is

clear

that we have in

their

report

ome

ingenious

roposals

for

a

great

bureaucracy

uch

as the

Fabian

heart

of

Mr.

Sidney

Webb

has long

desired.

But the

unique

value

of the

minority

reports itsdiscussionfthe vilsofthepresentystemna liter-

ary

style o

engaging

nd

illuminating

s to

awaken

the

most

n-

different

eader.

It

is a

matter

f

regret

hat

uch distinguished

scholars

s Mr.

and

Mrs.

Sidney

Webb

should produce

o

par-

tisan

treatise

s

this

volume

n

Poor Law

Policy.

We

look

in

vain

for

omeevidence

f an honest

esire

o

do

justice

o the

re-

port

f

themajority

f thecommissioners

nd to consider

oberly

therelativemerits fthemajoritys comparedwith heminority

plan.

There

s,

for

example,

n one

of

the

appendices,

lengthy

reprint

rom he

minority

eport

for

Scotland.

The unbiased

reader

would

have

been

gratified

f

the

writers

ad

added here

Lord

George

Hamilton's

admirable

memorandum

which

also

forms

art

of the

Scottish eport

nd contains

thelast

word"

of the majority.

If, however,the distinguisheddvocatesof the minority

report

ave been

disappointing

n the

partisan

haracter

f

their

campaign,

he same

charge

may

be laid at the door

of some

of

the

well-known

dherents

f the

majority

lan.

A

widely

ircu-

lated

volume

on The

Poor

Law

Report

of

i909"

by

Mrs.

Bosanquet

was

published

hortly

fter

the

reports

were

issued

and

before

the

minority

ad

begun

their

party

tactics.

From

Mrs. Bosanquet

as

fromMr. and Mrs. Webb one has a right

to

expect

fair

presentation

f

the

case,

for she

has been

much

respected

n

this

country

ot

only

as a

charity

rganizationist

"I

The

Poor

Law

Report

of

I909,

a

Summary

Explaining

the

Defects

of

the

Present

System

and

the Principal

Recommendations

f

the

Commission,

o

far

as

Relates

to

England

and

Wales,

by

Helen

Bosanquet.

London:

Macmillan,

I909.

8vo,

pp.

vi+272.



12/14

ENGLISH

POOR-LAW REFORM

57

but as

a lucid

writer

n

social

questions.

But her

volume

not

only

omits

all

discussion

f the

minorityeport,

ut

even

fails

to list it in thebibliographyf the reportswhich s givenin

an

appendix. One

may,

n

short,

ead Mrs.

Bosanquet's

ccount

of

The Poor

Law Report

of

I909

and

not

know that remark-

able

minority eport

was ever

ssued. However

great

her

desire

may

havebeen to

ignore

he

troublelsome

inority,

t was hardly

playing

fair

gamewith the

unsuspectingeader

to

keep him

so

wholly n

the

dark.

But ifthemajority ndminoritydvocateshave fallenunder

the

blight

of

a

partisanspell

so

completely

hat

they

have

beenunable

to give a

trustworthyccount

f

the

work

of

their

great

commission, hat

has

been excellently

one

for

them by

an outsider. In a modest nd

admirable

olume

alled

By

What

Authority,'l2

rofessor

Muirhead f

the

University f Birming-

ham

makes

most

xcellent

tatementf

"the

principles

n com-

monand at issue" in thetwo reports. Th.eAmerican tudent,

removed

from

the heat of

controversynd still

cherishing

genuine

espect

or

some

of

the

distinguished

dvocates

of

both

reports, ill

heartily

gree with

Professor

Muirhead's

onclusion

that the

present

s not

a time to

emphasize

differences,nd

that

there s not

only a

sufficiently

arge common

ground on

whichto

unite

but there

s to

be

found "in

the

apathy

of

the

many and the activehostility,fsome" an urgent eason why

the

two

groups

hould

unite.

Another

istinguished

dvocate

of

a less

extreme

method f

reform

han hat

proposed y

either he

majority r

theminority

commissioners

s

the

Rt. Hon.

CharlesBooth. It

seemed an

irreparable oss

when

Mr. Booth

was

obliged because

of ill

health

to

withdrawfrom

the

commission, ut

what was

lost

thenwill surelybe regainednow if he is able to rescue the

cause

of

reform

rom

he troubled

ea

of

controversy. hortly

after he

publication

f

thereports, critic

oted

hat hememo-

randa of Dr.

Downes

and Miss

Octavia

Hill

should

serve

as

"2By What Authority, he Principles in Common and at Issue in the Reports

of the Poor Law Commission,by John M. Muirhead, with an introduction y

Sir

Oliver Lodge;

2d

ed. London:

P.

S. King & Son, I909. 8vo, pp.

Vi+I02.



13/14

58

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL

ECONOMY

timely

eminders f

the

fact that to two

of

the most

practical

mindson

the

commission,ast and

important eforms ould

be

effected ithout herevolutionaryhange f area andauthorities

proposed n

both

hemajoritynd

minority

eports. The alterna-

tive

plan

proposed

y

Dr.

Downes as

a

substitute

or

he

bolition

of

the present

nion

was

a

policy f

grouping ogether

xisting

unions and

obtaining

arger

administrative

nits in

this

way.

This

was,

as

Dr.

Downes

pointed ut

n

his

memorandum,rigi-

nally plan

of Mr.

Booth's, ndhe now

puts t

within

asy reach

of thepublic n his littlebook on Poor Law

Reform.'3

This

plan would seem

to be

a

true

via media

for

the reformer

nd it

is to

be

hoped that,

with he

weight

f Mr.

Booth's

sanction

o

commendt,

t will

stand

large chance

of

success.

Miss

Octavia Hill's

objection

to the

county s

a unit

for

poor-law

dministration

as already

been

quoted, nd

it is

inter-

esting

and

significant

hat

Mr. Booth also

is

lopposed o

the

"administrativeoncentrationf dutiesthatare essentially is-

tinct."14 A

plan

which s

proposedby

Mr.

Charles Booth

and

sanctioned

y so able an

administrator

s Dr.

Downes and so

experienced

guide n social

reform

movements

s

Miss Octavia

Hill

should

certainly ommand

respect

from

both

of

the

ex-

tremewings

of

the

reforming orces.

In

conclusion t

may

be said that a

cause

is often n

grave

dangerwhen ts supporters ivide ntopartisangroups, nd it

is to be

hoped

that a nmoderate

rogram

will

be devised

upon

which

all

the

supporters f the

cause of

poor-law

reform an

agree.

It

will be a

national

calamity f the

public

interest

13

Poor

Law

Reform, by Charles Booth.

London:

Macmillan,

I9IO.

8vo,

pp.

92.

14

Mr. Booth's comment n

this point is well

worth

quoting: "That we

have

already gone far in the concentrationof local administrationdoes not prove

that we shall

do

well to

go farther. We

may easily over-do

it.

Sanitary

measures,

public health, and police go well

together, but

whatever may be

thought

s to education, the

scale seems

to me to

turn

against

the

interference

of

the County

or

County Borough Councils with

rate-aided

employment s a

cure

for

destitutionfrom lack of

work,

and to

lay upon

these authorities the

wholeadministration

f the Poor

Law

would,

think,

e

unwise.. . In

matters

of

sanitation,public health,

police,

and

as

regards

education

also in

last resort,

enforcement

s the basis of

action.

What is done is

in

the

name of the



14/14

ENGLISH

POOR-LAW

REFORM

59

awakenedby the publication f the

report

s not used

to help

the cause and if the

presentfavorablemoment

for

pushing

great reforms lost n quarreling ver detailsof administration.

In

the words of Professor

Muirhead, the present s

a time to

unite,

nd

the worst

ervice ny

group

of

reformersan render

to the

common ause

of

progress

s to

press their

theoretical

differences

o

thepoint

f

schism."

EDITH

ABBOTT

CHICAGO SCHOOL OF

CIVICS AND

PHILANTHROPY

common

good;

the

law

insists,

the

public purse

pays. The Poor Law, although

it

stands ready

to

assist, waits

to be

asked; its terms are fixed,but

the applicant

can still

accept

or

refuse.

Thus

the

action of the Poor

Law is not

only distinct,

but for

the most

part

fundamentally ivergent

n

character

from

the

other public

services

mentioned."

edith abbott - english poor-law reform

Documents