Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:58:25.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The boundary between voluntary and statutory social service in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Jane Lewis
Jane Lewis
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the debate between the charity organisation society and the new forms of personal service societies that grew up during the Edwardian period, disagreement centred on the nature of the boundary to be drawn between state and voluntary action. The paper reviews the theory and practice of the COS and suggests that while the new societies had much in common with the COS regarding their methods, the nature of their ‘partnership’ with the state was significantly different. While the COS operated a division of labour based on client groups, the new societies preferred a task-based division. The paper argues that while the new societies were determinedly more civic-minded and pragmatic regarding their attitudes towards state welfare provision, they offered no coherent rationale for voluntary effort to replace the theory developed by the COS.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 155 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The phrase is Anne Digby's (see her British welfare policy (London, 1989)) and is used to refer to the period 1945–1970SGoogle Scholar. It has also been taken up by Rodney, Lowe, The welfare state in Britain since 1945 (London, 1993).Google Scholar

2 Titmuss, R. M., Essays on the welfare state (London, 1976) 3rd edn, pp. 34–55.Google Scholar

3 The increase in contemporary analysis has been huge, new journals have been started, for example, Voluntas and Non Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Most of the work is dominated by Americans. Some representative collections are: Powell, Walter W. (ed.), The non profit sector. A research handbook (New Haven, 1987)Google Scholar; Anheier, Helmut K. and Wolfgang, Siebel (eds.), The third sector. Comparative studies of nonprofit organisations (New York, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Benjamin, Gidron, Kramer, Ralph M. and Salamon, Lester M. (eds.), Government and the third sector. Emerging relationships in welfare states (San Francisco, 1992)Google Scholar. Historical work includes that of Frank, Prochaska, The voluntary impulse. Philanthropy in modem Britain (London, 1988)Google Scholar; and Geoffrey, Finlayson, ‘A moving frontier: voluntarism and the state in British social welfare, 1911–1949’, Twentieth Century British History, 1 (1990), 183–206.Google Scholar

4 Moore, Michael J., ‘Social work and social welfare: the organization of philanthropic resources in Britain, 1900–1914’, Journal of British Studies, XIV (1977), 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar. While Moore was the first to focus on the new voluntary organizations of the Edwardian years, other writers, for example Stephen, Yeo, Religion and voluntary organisations in crisis (London, 1976)Google Scholar, had signalled their importance.

5 See especially Elizabeth, Macadam, The new philanthropy (London, 1934).Google Scholar

6 Michael, Cahill and Tony, Jowitt, ‘The new philanthropy: the emergence of the Bradford City Guild of Help’, Journal of Social Policy, IX (1980), 359–82.Google Scholar

7 Keith, Laybourne, ‘The Guild of Help and the changing face of Edwardian philanthropy’, Urban History, XX (1993), 43–60.Google Scholar

8 Kidd, Alan J., ‘Charity organization and the unemployed in Manchester c. 1870–1914’, Social History, IX (1984), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Frederick, D'Acth, ‘Local Representation Committees’, Charity Organisation Review (hereafter COR), July 1915, pp. 107–147Google Scholar. (Prior to 1885 the Charity Organisation Review was called the Charity Organisation Reporter.)

10 Robert, Humphreys, ‘The poor law and charity. The Charity Organisation Society in the provinces, 1870–1890’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1991Google Scholar has shown how relatively weak the COS was outside London. Indeed, many guilds of help and councils of social welfare absorbed their local charity organization societies.

11 Helen, Bosanquet, Social work in London, 1869–1912. A history of the COS (London, 1914), p. 92.Google Scholar

12 Sidney and Beatrice, Webb, The prevention of destitution (London, 1912), pp. 225–53.Google Scholar

13 For example, Maria, Brenton, The voluntary sector in British social services (London, 1985), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

14 Pat, Thane, ‘Government and society in England and Wales, 1750–1914’, in Thompson, F. M. L. (ed.), The Cambridge social history of Britain, 1750–1950, III Social agencies and institutions (Cambridge, 1990), 1–62Google Scholar; see also Matthew, H. C. G., Gladstone, 1809–1974 (Oxford, 1985), p. 116.Google Scholar

15 Twenty-second annual report of the poor law board, 1869–70, C.123, Appendix A, no. 4.

16 COS council minutes, A/FWA/C/A1/1, 29/11/69, p. 79.

17 Webb, , Prevention of destitution, p. 229.Google Scholar

18 Finlayson, ‘A moving frontier’. Mathew, Thomson, ‘The problem of mental deficiency in England and Wales, c. 1913–1946’, unpublished D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1992Google Scholar, also argues that Finlayson is overly sanguine about the accommodation reached between the sectors during the inter-war years.

19 Harris, José, Unemployment and politics. A study in English social policy, 1886–1914 (Oxford, 1972), p. 106.Google Scholar

20 David, Owen, English philanthropy, 1660–1690 (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 236.Google Scholar

21 Constance, Braithwaite, The voluntary citizen. An enquiry into the place of philanthropy in the community (London, 1938), p. 8.Google Scholar

22 Humphreys, ‘The poor law and charity’, tends to be dismissive of the influence of the COS's conception of charity too, but he is probably on shaky ground. Commenting on the lack of opposition to a number of COS representatives on the 1905–9 royal commission on the poor laws. A. M. McBriar comments that this was ‘a sign of wide acceptance of basic COS views in informed circles in Edwardian times; indeed, it is probable that those views were widely accepted without being thought of as being the peculiar property of the COS–they were thought to be “common-sense”’ (An Edwardian mixed doubles: the Bosanquets versus the Webbs. A study in British social policy, 1890–1929 [Oxford, 1987], p. 194)Google Scholar. Finlayson warns of the danger of taking the COS as the sole spokesman of the pre-war years (rightly in view of the growth of the new forms of charity organization), but nonetheless says that the COS is a useful weathervane of opinion (‘A moving frontier’, pp. 186, 199–200).

23 W. A. Bailward, ‘Upon things concerning civic and social work that may be learnt in charity organisation’, COS Occasional Paper no. 1, 1904. This view, intriguingly at odds with the modern economists' conceptualization of the voluntary sector as a product of statutory failure (see especially Weisbrod, Burton A., The non-profit economy [Cambridge, 1988])Google Scholar, was commonly held. See also Loch, C. S., ‘The charities of church and chapel’, COS Occasional Paper no. 23, 1892Google Scholar; and, from a perspective favourable to state intervention, Gray, B. Kirkman, Philanthropy and the state of social politics (London, 1980), preface by B. L. Hutchins.Google Scholar

24 Bailward, W. A., ‘The relationship of legal relief to private charity’, Proceedings of the 36th annual central poor law conference, 1908, p. 740.Google Scholar

25 This was a much trumpeted view, see Bailward, W. A., The slippery slope and other papers on social subjects (London, 1920), pp. 121–31Google Scholar; William, Chance, ‘The Elberfeld and English poor law systems: a comparison’, Economic Journal, VII (1897), 344–5.Google Scholar

26 Thomas, Mackay, Methods of social reform (London, 1896), pp. 2–6.Google Scholar

27 Loch, C. S., A great ideal and its champion. Papers and addresses by the late Sir Charles Stuart Loch (London, 1923), p. 102.Google Scholar

28 Loch, C. S., ‘If citizens be friends’, in Loch, (ed.), Methods of social advance. Short studies in social practice by various authors (London, 1904), p. 189.Google Scholar

29 Bosanquet, B. (ed.), Aspects of social reform (London, 1895), p. 105.Google Scholar

30 Bosanquet, B., ‘The meaning of social work’, International Journal of Ethics, XI (1901), 298.Google Scholar

31 Loch, ‘The ethics of charity’ (a paper read at a conference of members of women's settlements in 1910), in Loch, , A great ideal and its champion, pp. 41–60.Google Scholar

32 Collini, S., Public moralists. Political thought and intellectual life in Britain 1850–1930 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 60–90.Google Scholar

33 Mackay, T., The English poor (London, 1889), pp. 283–97.Google Scholar

34 Diary of C. S. Loch, 1/7/79, TS, University of London Library.

35 Loch, , ‘The ethics of charity’, p. 47.Google Scholar

36 Urwick, E. J., ‘The principle of reciprocity in social life and action’, the Second Charles Loch Memorial Lecture, 1930.Google Scholar

37 These ideas are developed in Jane, Lewis, Women and social action in late Victorian and Edwardian England (Aldershot, 1991), pp. 146–92Google Scholar. See also Yeo, , Religion and voluntary organisations, pp. 220–2.Google Scholar

38 Bosanquet, B., ‘Lecture on charitable and social work’, 15/4/01Google Scholar, Family welfare association papers, GLC archives, A/FWA/C/A3/38/1, p. 123.

39 Bosanquet, B., ‘I. The majority report’, Sociological review, II (1909), 115.Google Scholar

40 Barnett, Samuel A., ‘A friendly criticism of the Charity Organisation Society’, COR, 08. 1895. PP. 338–44.Google Scholar

41 The phrase was Octavia, Hill's, Letter to my fellow workers, 1877, p. 10Google Scholar, D.Misc. 84/5, Marylebone Public Library.

42 Humphreys, , ‘The poor law and charity’, pp. 13, 29Google Scholar; Rose, Michael E., ‘The disappearing pauper: Victorian attitudes to the relief of the poor’, in Sigsworth, Eric M. (ed.), In search of Victorian values (Manchester, 1988), pp. 56–72Google Scholar; and Mary, MacKinnon, ‘English poor law policy and the crusade against outrelief’, Journal of Economic History, XLVII (1987), 603–25.Google Scholar

43 Loch, C. S., ‘A new chapter in charity organisation’, 22 July 1885Google Scholar, private memo for the COS.

44 See especially Humphreys, ‘The poor law and charity’. However, it is impossible to generalize. Violet Buder painted a picture of close co-operation in Edwardian Oxford: Butler, C. V., Social conditions in Oxford (London, 1912), pp. 194–5.Google Scholar

45 Mackay, , English poor, p. 221Google Scholar treated Crowder as a shining example of what co-operation could achieve in promoting self-reliance, but S. and Webb, B., Prevention of destitution, pp. 236–7Google Scholar were scathing about the failure of his efforts.

46 Helen Bosanquet admits this in her Social work in London, 1869–1912. A history of the COS (London, 1914), p. 65.Google Scholar

47 ‘First report of the committee on training’, 12/12/98, A/FWA/C/A1/12, p. 50.

48 Bernard Bosanquet, ‘Idealism in social work’, COR, Mar. 1898, p. 129.

49 Council minutes, 17/1/70, A/FWA/C/A1/1, p. 115.

50 Proceedings of council, COR, 3 May 1976, p. 52.

51 Mackay, T., Is the administration of relief the only function of the Society?, COS occasional paper no. 17, 1888Google Scholar; Bailward, , The slippery slope, p. 80.Google Scholar

52 ‘The annual meeting’, COR, 15 Mar. 1974, p. 230.Google Scholar

53 Humphreys, , ‘The poor law and charity’, p. 145Google Scholar. This was true of many London districts too; for example, Hackney spent a lot of its time from an early stage deciding on relief principles, Hackney COS minutes, A/FWA/TH/A3/2/1.

54 ‘Adequate relief’, COR, 31 Jan. 1878, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

55 ‘Deserving cases’, COR, 19 Jan. 1882, p. 15.Google Scholar

56 Helen, Dendy, ‘Thorough charity’, COR, 06 1893, pp. 206–14.Google Scholar

57 Hobson, J. A., ‘The social philosophy of charity organisation’, Contemporary Review, LXX (1896), 723.Google Scholar

58 The fluctuating history of this aspect of the COS's work is traced in the Report of the districts sub-committee on the relief work of the society, 18/11/01, A/FWA/C/A1/12, p. 242.

59 See for example, ‘Charity agents’, COR, 30 Jan. 1879, p. 31Google Scholar; ‘Applicants in the office’, COR, 9 Mar. 1882, p. 63Google Scholar; Masterman, N., ‘The COS of the future’, COR, 06 1885, p. 241.Google Scholar

60 Octavia, Hill, ‘Organised work among the poor: suggestions founded on four years management of a London court’, Macmillans, XX (1869), 224.Google Scholar

61 Emily, Maurice (ed.), Octavia Hill: early ideals (London, 1928), p. 211.Google Scholar

62 Octavia Hill to Rev. Fremantle, 1 Nov. 1874, Coll. Misc. 512, BLPES.

63 Margaret, Sewell, ‘Some aspects of charity organisation’, COR, 01. 1898, pp. 8–24.Google Scholar

64 Loch, C. S., Charity organisation (London, 1892), pp. 30–3.Google Scholar

65 Frank, Prochaska, Women and philanthropy in nineteenth-century England (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar, comments on the gender division of labour in philanthropic activity.

66 Alfred, Marshall, ‘Poor law reform’, Economic Journal, II (1892), 378.Google Scholar

67 Mackay, , Methods of social reform, p. 279.Google Scholar

68 Barnett, , ‘A friendly criticism’.Google Scholar

69 A., and Barnett, H., Practicable socialism. Essays on social reform (London, 1894), pp. 244–5.Google Scholar

70 Barnett, , Practicable socialism (1894), p. 108Google Scholar. This view was not dissimilar to that of Charles Booth, also an advocate of old age pensions.

71 S., and Barnett, H., Practicable socialism (1894), p. 108Google Scholar; and 3rd edn (1915), pp. 238–9.

72 Loch, , ‘A new chapter in charity organisation’, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

73 José, Harris, Unemployment and politics. A study in English social policy, 1886–1914 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 106–9.Google Scholar

74 As one COS member put it: ‘Outlying territory we can abandon, but here our citadel is reached. If we cannot defend this wall we might as well surrender’, Joseph Lee, ‘The integrity of the family: a vital issue’, COS report (nd), Bosanquet papers, Trunk II, Box H, Newcastle University Library.

75 Hilda, Jennings, The private citizen in public social work. An account of the voluntary children care committee system in London (London, 1930).Google Scholar

76 Henry, Iselin, ‘The story of a children's care committee’, Economic Review, XXII (1912), 43.Google Scholar

77 Anon., Thomas Hancock Num. The life and work of a social reformer (London, 1942), pp. 17, 75.Google Scholar

78 Nunn, Thomas Hancock, A council of social welfare. A note and memorandum on the report of the royal commission on the poor law and relief of distress as to the functions and constitution of the new public assistance authority and its local committees (London, 1909), p. 11.Google Scholar

79 Nunn, , A council of social welfare, p. 6.Google Scholar

80 D'Aeth, , ‘The social welfare movement’, Thomas Hancock Nunn, ‘Voluntary workers at Newcastle’, Economic Review, XXIV (1914), 273–82.Google Scholar

81 Report to the president of the local government board on guilds of help in England, Cd. 5664, 1911.

82 Nunn, , A council of social welfare, p. 70.Google Scholar

83 Lara Marks has referred to these in her ‘Safeguarding the health of the community: maternal and infant welfare services in four London boroughs 1902–36’, paper given at the society for the social history of medicine annual conference, 3–5 July 1992.

84 Loch, C. S., ‘The development of charity organisation’, private and confidential memorandum to members of the COS, June 1903.Google Scholar

85 Loch, C. S., ‘The future of local charity organisation’, 18/11/07, A/FWA/A1/13/1, p. 178.Google Scholar

86 Loch, C. S., ‘The programme of charity organisation’, COR, 07 1916, pp. 47–69Google Scholar, reiterated his opposition to this after his resignation from the COS due to ill-health.

87 ‘The COS and the social welfare association’, 23/5/10, A/FWA/C/A1/14, p. 148.

88 Mary, Richmond, Friendly visiting among the poor. A handbook for charity workers (New York, 1899)Google Scholar; see also Robinson, Virginia P., A changing psychology in social case work (Chapel Hill, 1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 See, for example, one of the early talks given to the guilds by W. Milledge, secretary of the Bradford city guild of help to the COS annual conference in 1906, ‘Guilds of help’, COR, July 1906, pp. 46–55.Google Scholar

90 Shairp, L. V., ‘The COS and the guilds of help’, COR, 07 1912, pp. 73–93.Google Scholar

91 The chart was reproduced in Progress, no. 2 (April 1906), 147 and used by the Bradford city guild of help to illustrate each case book, Cahill, and Jowitt, , ‘The new philanthropy’, p. 379.Google Scholar

92 Masterman, N., ‘The guild of help movement’, COR, 07 1906, pp. 139–50.Google Scholar

93 Octavia, Hill, ‘The Elberfield system in London’, COR, 4/11/74, pp. 317–21.Google Scholar

94 ‘The Elberfield system’, COR, 27/3/72, p. 63 and ‘The Elberfield system’, 4/3/74, p. 215.

95 Poor laws in foreign countries. Report to the local government board, C. 1255, 1875, p. 357.

96 Reports on the Elberfeld poor law system, C.534, 1888.

97 Julie, Sutter, Britain's next campaign (London, 1904), 1st edn, 1901Google Scholar under the title Cities and citizens, or Britain's next campaign.

98 Julie, Sutter, Britain's hope. An open letter concerning the pressing social problems to the Rt. Hon. John Bums [president of the local government board] (London, 1907), p. 31.Google Scholar

99 Byles, A. Holden, ‘The larger work of the guilds of help’, Progress no. 10 (04 1908), 100Google Scholar; see also Grisewood, W., ‘The place of relief in the service of the poor’, Second national conference of guilds of help, 1909, p. 78Google Scholar, comment in discussion by S. P. Grundy.

100 Masterman, , ‘Guild of help movement’, pp. 145–6.Google Scholar

101 Attlee, C., The social workers (London, 1920), pp. 75–8.Google Scholar

102 Cd. 5664, p. 5.

103 Hancock, Nunn, ‘Council of social welfare’, p. 32Google Scholar; Milledge, , ‘Guilds of help’, p. 51Google Scholar; Masterman, , ‘Guild of help movement’, pp. 144–5.Google Scholar

104 ‘Conference on the future of the COS’, 7/1/08, A/FWA/C/A1/13/1, p. 290.

105 Leach, , ‘Guilds of help and charitable agencies in relation to statutory poor relief’, pp. 428–9Google Scholar opposed any fusion of forces, while Harrison, J. L., ‘Cooperation between charity and the poor law; a plea for its more general application’, Proceedings of the 22nd annual poor law conference of the north midland districts, 1910, pp. 526–41Google Scholar argued the opposite. Milledge, , ‘Guilds of help’, p. 47Google Scholar envisaged municipal funding of the voluntary sector.

106 Report of the special committee on the organisation and methods of the society, 25/10/09, A/FWA/C/A1/14/1, p. 96.

107 This was also the interpretation of A. Ernest Thomas, secretary of the Middlesbrough guild of help. See his ‘Guilds of help, their formation and growth’, paper given to the annual conference of social service and guilds of help, 1933, NCVO library.

108 Report of the special committee on the organization and methods of the society, p. 39.

109 SirChance, William, ‘The assistance of charity, the poor law and the voluntary agencies’, 8/7/12, A/FWA/C/A1/13/1, p. 270.Google Scholar

110 Report of the royal commission on the poor laws and the relief of distress, Cd. 4499, 1909, majority report, pp. 448, 521–3.

111 Ibid., minority report, p. 1021, 1101.

112 This is the argument of Adams, B. K., ‘Charity, voluntary work and professionalization in late Victorian and Edwardian England, with special reference to the COS and guilds of help’, unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Sussex, 1976.Google Scholar

113 The dean of Norwich, , The sphere of voluntary agencies under the minority report (London, 1910).Google Scholar

114 S. and Webb, B., Prevention of destitution, pp. 253–60.Google Scholar

115 T. Hancock Nunn, The minority report (London, nd).

116 Milledge, , ‘Guilds of help’, p. 47.Google Scholar

117 MrsTownshend, , The case against the COS, Fabian Tract no. 158, July 1911.Google Scholar

118 Letter from Violet Markham to the Spectator, ‘The problem of poverty’, 26/8/11, Markham papers Pt. 11, 28/55, LSE archives.

119 ‘Miss Markham on the COS’, COR, Mar. 1912, pp. 129–32.Google Scholar

120 Mary E. Richmond, The long view. Papers and addresses by Richmond, Mary E., selected and edited by Joanna C. Colcord (New York, 1930), pp. 214–21.Google Scholar

121 For example, a joint conference was held in 1912.

122 Prochaska, , The voluntary impulse, pp. 74–6.Google Scholar

123 D'Aeth, Frederic G., ‘War relief agencies and the guild of help movement’, Progress, X (1915), 140–7.Google Scholar

124 Bernard, Bosanquet, Social and international ideals. Being studies in patriotism (London, 1917), p. 134.Google Scholar

125 Pringle, J. C., British social services. The nation's appeal to the housewife and her response (London, 1933).Google Scholar

126 Brasnett, M., Voluntary social action. A history of the national council of social service, 1919–1961 (London, 1969)Google Scholar. See also Keeling, Dorothy C., The crowded stairs (London, 1961).Google Scholar

127 Pringle, J. C., Social work of the London churches, being some account of the metropolitan visiting and relief association, 1843–1937 (London, 1937)Google Scholar, struggled to reach an accommodation with the new order, while stating firmly his belief that the battle against state ‘wholesale’ reform had been lost by 1906.

128 See, for example, Simey, T. S., Principles of social administration (Oxford, 1937).Google Scholar

129 See, for example, the Essays on aspects of public administration published by the institute of public administration in the Spelman research studies series (1935); Constance, Braithwaite, The voluntary citizen. An enquiry into the place of philanthropy in the community (London, 1938)Google Scholar; and Macadam, The new philanthropy.

130 See, for example, the case of district nursing: Enid, Fox, ‘District nursing and the work of district nursing associations in England and Wales, 1900–1948’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1993.Google Scholar