Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:45:00.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1905–09

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Kathleen Woodroofe
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although there is some truth in the comment made by Canon Barnett, rector of St Jude's, Whitechapel, and founder of Toynbee Hall, that the issue in 1909 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws “may mark the beginning of a new epoch in our social life”, the precise reasons for the appointment of the Commission on December 4th, 1905, are not yet known. The Conservative government, which made the appointment almost on the eve of its defeat, had been in power for ten years, first under the prime ministership of Lord Salisbury and then, until his resignation in December 1905, of A. J. Balfour. During that time the cost of the Poor Law had risen steadily, and yet, until the end of 1904, either through social myopia or a preoccupation with the greater drama of events abroad, the government displayed little interest in the problem of the Poor Law or, indeed, in any of the wider questions of social reform.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , August 1977 , pp. 137 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1977

References

page 137 note 1 New Poor Law or No Poor Law. Being a Description of the Majority and Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission. With an introductory note by Canon Barnett (London, 1909), p. ix.Google Scholar

page 138 note 1 Beatrice, Webb, Our Partnership, ed. by Drake, Barbara and Cole, Margaret I. (London, 1948), pp. 194, 195.Google Scholar

page 138 note 2 The Heart of the Empire. Discussion of Problems of Modern City Life in England (London, 1901), p. 4.Google Scholar

page 138 note 3 Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress. Separate Report by the Rev. Prebendary H. Russell Wakefield. Mr. Francis Chandler, Mr. George Lansbury and Mrs. Sidney Webb (hereafter called Minority Report), p. 545, quoting Evidence before the Commission, q. 78466.

page 139 note 1 John Brown has quoted a letter, dated December 6, 1904, from Walter Long, then President of the Local Government Board, to the Prime Minister, in which Long urges the justification “for a fresh Inquiry”. See “The Appointment of the Poor Law Commission”, in: Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLII (1969), pp. 239–42.Google Scholar See also K. D. Brown, “Appointment of the Poor Law Commission. A Rejoinder”, ibid., XLIV (1971), pp. 315–18, in which the appointment is described as “simply a tactical manoeuvre, rather than the result of any long considered conservative strategy”, and John Brown's reply, “Poor Law Commission and the 1905 Unemployed Workmen Act”, ibid., pp. 318–23.

page 139 note 2 Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress [Cd 4499] (London, 1909)Google Scholar (hereafter called Majority Report), Vol. II, Pt IX, § 173. All references are to this edition unless stated otherwise.

page 139 note 3 Our Partnership, p. 322. Beatrice Webb's diary from 1905 to 1909, printed in ch. VII of Our Partnership, is, of course, the most comprehensive and the most fascinating account of the inner life of a Royal Commission that we have, but, being unashamedly partisan, it should be handled with care. For other versions of the Commission, see Una Cormack, The Welfare State (Loch Memorial Lecture, 1953, printed by Family Welfare Association), and Raymond Postgate, The Life of George Lansbury (London, 1951).

page 140 note 1 Our Partnership, p 317. Beatrice Webb ascribed the creation of the Commission “to the coincidence of there being, as newly appointed head of the poor law division […] (James Stewart Davy) intent on reaction; and, as President of the Local Government Board […] (Mr. Gerald Balfour) […]. There was, in fact, in official circles, an uneasy feeling that there had been, during the last two decades, an unwilling drift away from the principles of 1834, and one which sooner or later had to be decisively stopped.” Ibid.

page 140 note 2 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt I, p. 15.

page 141 note 1 Article, unsigned but obviously written by Loch, C. S., on “The Royal Commission”, in: Charity Organisation Review, New Series, XVIII (1905), pp. 141, 142–43.Google Scholar

page 141 note 2 Our Partnership, p. 321.

page 141 note 3 Ibid., pp. 331–32.

page 142 note 1 Margaret Cole, Beatrice Webb (London, 1945), p. 99.Google Scholar There was fierce criticism of this fact when the Webbs claimed the copyright of the Minority Report, which, of course, they could not have done if other signatories had contributed even a line. E.g., “Never before […] has the Report of a Royal Commission [been] written in great part by one who has neither been appointed to the Commission, nor has been present at its meetings nor heard the evidence.” The Minority Report. A Criticism (London, 1910), p. 5.Google Scholar A summary of this appeared in The Times, June 9, 1910.

page 142 note 2 Our Partnership, p. 358.

page 142 note 3 Una Cormack, The Welfare State, op. cit., pp. 21, 32–33.

page 142 note 4 The Report of the Poor Law Commission. Reprinted from the Times (London, 1909), Preface, p. 3.Google Scholar

page 142 note 5 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt II, § 4–7.

page 143 note 1 Ibid., Pt IV, § 185.

page 143 note 2 Ibid., § 190.

page 144 note 1 Minority Report, p. 15, quoting Evidence before the Commission, q. 71398, Report […] on the Methods and Results of […] Poor Law Medical Relief, by Dr John C. McVail, 1907, p. 146, and Memorandum on Certain Aspects of Poor Law Administration, by A. D. Steel-Maitland and R. E. Squire, p. 1.

page 144 note 2 Minority Report, p. 83.

page 144 note 3 Ibid., p. 88, quoting the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, 1908, Vol. VI, p. 221; Vol. VIII, p. 22.

page 144 note 4 Ibid., p. 91, quoting Reports of Visits by Commissioners, No 24, p. 65.

page 145 note 1 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt IV, § 438.

page 145 note 2 Minority Report, p. 112, quoting Report […] on the Condition of the Children, by Dr W. Williams, 1908, p. 103.

page 146 note 1 Ibid., pp. 256, 257, 279.

page 146 note 2 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt IV, § 331–33.

page 147 note 1 Minority Report, pp. 197–98.

page 147 note 2 Ibid., p. 231.

page 147 note 3 E.g., “The experience of the past […] demonstrates […] beyond possibility of doubt that when a Destitution Authority departs from the simple function of providing bare maintenance under deterrent conditions, it finds it quite impossible to mark off or delimit its services from those which are required by, and provided for, the population at large.” (Minority Report, pp. 394–95) And again, “A Health Service having for its first and great aim the prevention of disease, embracing the present Public Health, Medical Charities and Poor Law Hospital Services […] would, I consider, particularly if managed as a State Service, be a forward step of immense benefit to the public health and poor of the country.” (Ibid., pp. 229–30)

page 148 note 1 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt V, § 118.

page 148 note 2 Minority Report, pp. 238–39.

page 149 note 1 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt VI, § 327, quoting Summary of Reports of Workhouse Chaplains as to the effect of life on inmates, pp. 6 (1), 21, 18.

page 149 note 2 Minority Report, pp. 453–54, quoting Evidence before the Commission, q. 47005.

page 149 note 3 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt VI, § 408, quoting Jackson and Pringle's Report on Unemployment, p. 148.

page 149 note 4 Ibid., § 471.

page 149 note 5 Ibid., § 382.

page 150 note 1 Minority Report, pp. 525, 528.

page 150 note 2 Introduction to Pt I of the Minority Report, printed in Social Welfare in Transition. Selected English Documents 1834–1909, ed. by Lubove, Roy (Pittsburgh, 1966), p. 202.Google Scholar

page 151 note 1 Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, Appendix, Vol. I, Minutes of Evidence, q. 2230. See also answers to qq. 2027, 2229, 2033, 2036, 2318, 2366 and 2375.

page 151 note 2 Ibid., q. 3219.

page 151 note 3 Majority Report, Vol. II, Pt IX, § 3.

page 151 note 4 Ibid., Vol. I, Pt VI, § 304.

page 152 note 1 Ibid., Pt IV, § 301. For an interesting discussion of the attitude to the poor of Charles Booth and other Commissioners, see McBriar, M., “Charles Booth and the Royal Commission of the Poor Laws, 1905–1909”, in: Historical Studies (University of Melbourne, Australia), XV (1973), pp. 722–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 152 note 2 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt IV, § 222.

page 152 note 3 Ibid., Pt V, § 220.

page 152 note 4 Ibid., Vol. II, Pt IX, § 132.

page 153 note 1 Ibid., § 133.

page 153 note 2 Ibid., Pt VIII, § 10, 12.

page 153 note 3 Beatrice Webb to Georgine Meinertzhagen, March 1911, Passfield Papers, British Library of Political and Economic Science, quoted by Brown, John, “Social Judgements and Social Policy”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XXIV (1971), p. 112.Google Scholar

page 154 note 1 See Minority Report, Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of Pt I, and Pt II, pp. 690–716.

page 154 note 2 The Minority Report. A Criticism, op. cit., p. 4.

page 154 note 3 “The Minority Scheme is not socialistic. [It] does not involve or even lead to the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is a sort of social main drainage system, a necessary basis to a civilised society upon whatever principle it is based.” “The Prevention of Destitution”, in: Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress. A Course of Nine Lectures in Sheffield, 1909–1910, ed. by Scurfield, H. (Sheffield Weekly News reprint), p. 17.Google Scholar

page 154 note 4 The Reports of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 and 1909. A Paper read before the Society of the Poor Law Workers on May 10, 1909 (London, 1909), p. 7.Google Scholar

page 155 note 1 Marshall, T. H., Social Policy in the Twentieth Century (London, 1968), p. 41.Google Scholar

page 155 note 2 “Solidarity Considered as a Test of Social Condition in England”, in: Charity Organisation Review, New Series, XXVI (1909), p. 263.Google Scholar

page 155 note 3 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt VI, § 616.

page 156 note 1 Ibid., § 623.

page 156 note 2 “The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law and the Relief of Distress”, in: Charity Organisation Review, New Series, XXV (1909), p. 77.Google Scholar

page 156 note 3 Majority Report, Vol. II, Pt IX, § 169.

page 156 note 4 Life of Octavia Hill as told in her Letters, ed. by Edmund, C. (London, 1913), p. 61.Google Scholar

page 156 note 5 “The Future of Charity”, in: Charity Organisation Reporter, No 551 (09 27, 1884), pp. 320, 321.Google Scholar

page 157 note 1 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt IV, § 293, and Vol. II, Pt IX, § 71.

page 157 note 2 Ibid., Vol. I, Pt IV, § 297, quoting Report of an Inquiry in Six Unions into Cases of Refusal of Outdoor Relief, Miss Harlock, p. 37.

page 157 note 3 Ibid., Vol. II, Pt IX, § 13.

page 158 note 1 Ibid., § 151.

page 158 note 2 The illuminating phrase “wards in poverty” is taken from Marshall, Social Policy in the Twentieth Century, op. cit., p. 43, to whose interpretation of the role of the Destitution Authority I am indebted. See ibid., pp. 41–43.

page 159 note 1 Minority Report, pp. 395–411.

page 159 note 2 Ibid., p. 395.

page 159 note 3 Ibid., p. 673.

page 159 note 4 Our Partnership, pp. 475, 417, 468, 418.

page 160 note 1 Majority Report, Vol. I, Pt I, p. 27.

page 160 note 2 “On the issue of the Report, he [Barnett] was much troubled, having so earnestly hoped that the members would be unanimous and thus invincible”. Canon Barnett. His Life. Work and Friends, by his Wife (London, 1919), II, pp. 284–87.Google Scholar

page 160 note 3 See Beatrice Webb's entry in her diary for February 18, 1909, Our Partnership, p. 425.

page 160 note 4 Priestley, J. B., The Edwardians (London, 1970), pp. 121, 92, 119.Google Scholar

page 160 note 5 Haldane, E. S. to Webb, B., 1909, Passfield Papers, quoted by Michael E. Rose, The Relief of Poverty, 1834–1914 (London, 1972), p. 47.Google Scholar

page 161 note 1 Quoted in Our Partnership, p. 450.

page 161 note 2 “The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws with regard to Administration”, in: Proceedings of the Central and District Poor Law Conferences held from May 1908 to April 1909, with the Papers read and discussion thereon, and Report of the Central Committee (London, 1909), p. 663.Google Scholar

page 161 note 3 Ibid., p. 712.

page 162 note 1 Palmer, Thomas, “The Abolition of the Guardians”, in: Proceedings of the Central and District Poor Law Conferences held from May 1909 to 12 1910, pp. 561, 562, 573.Google Scholar

page 162 note 2 Herbert Davy, “The Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws”, ibid., p. 148.

page 162 note 3 Report of the Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Poor Law Conference for the South Midland District, held at Town Hall, Oxford, May 21, 1909, pp. 83, 82.

page 162 note 4 S., and Webb, B., English Poor Law History, Pt II (London, 1929), p. 723.Google Scholar

page 163 note 1 The Times, March 31, 1930.

page 163 note 2 Una Cormack, The Welfare State, p. 32.

page 163 note 3 For a history of the concept, see McBriar, A. M., Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884–1918 (Cambridge, 1966), especially pp. 107–08, 257–60,Google Scholar and on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, pp. 266–74.

page 164 note 1 Our Partnership, pp. 481–82.

page 164 note 2 Ibid., p. 477.