Download - 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 -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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."
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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,
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/11/2019 Edith Abbott - English Poor-Law Reform
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."