Daunton M. The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, Volume 3: 1840-1950
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
extent. At the end of the s it was estimated that over £ million was annu-
ally spent on legal relief and over £ million on private charity. The large and
increasing flow of charity from the West End to the East End of London in the
s was thought to result from the absence of direct economic links between
rich and poor, the disproportionate weight of members of the older professions
in the London population and the geographical gulf between rich and poor. By
the s this social divide had widened with the exodus of the wealthy and
upset the ‘balance’ between charity and the poor law which could only work
when rich and poor were roughly balanced in each district. As a result the
poorest districts had the highest rates and the lowest benefits, while the charge
in the rich districts was nominal and the relief generous. As discussed further
below, legislation in which increased the size of the responsible units helped
to meet this aspect of the problem. In the central poor law authorities,
responding to the problems of London, attempted to restrict outrelief and with
the assistance of the COS eliminate the mix of charity and poor relief that
undermined the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor.
50
In Scotland philanthropic organisations for the relief of the poor flourished –
dispensaries, orphanages, district nursing, institutions for the handicapped and
the convalescent, model lodging houses, homes for fallen women. Although the
financial outlay of Scottish charity cannot be estimated it was particularly impor-
tant for the provision of social welfare, as poor relief was the responsibility of
local kirk sessions until the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Act of , and,
unlike England, the able-bodied were not entitled to relief under the poor law
even after .
51
Voluntary hospital provision for the sick poor in Scotland was
particularly prominent. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen had their great
Royal Infirmaries, founded in the eighteenth century but rebuilt and extended
in the nineteenth. Urban expansion in the nineteenth century led to further
efforts, with new voluntary hospitals such as the Western Infirmary in Glasgow
opened in . The large voluntary hospitals were supported not only by
middle-class charity but increasingly by mutual aid with donations by workmen,
organised within their workplace, to secure admission for themselves. Specialist
voluntary hospitals also developed in the major cities, and most burghs had sub-
stantial general hospitals supported by charity.
52
In the commercial sector, where considerations of profit predominate in the
provision of welfare, both large companies and individual enterprises provided
social welfare in Victorian towns and cities. Industrial insurance companies such
as the Royal Liver or the Prudential emerged during the mid-nineteenth
century, financing funerals and death benefits from small premiums paid
weekly to house-to-house collectors, thereby providing mutual aid without
Marguerite Dupree
50
G. Stedman Jones, Outcast London (Oxford, ), pp. –, .
51
Crowther, ‘Poverty, health and welfare’, p. ; O. Checkland, Philanthropy in Victorian Scotland
(Edinburgh, ).
52
Crowther, ‘Poverty, health and welfare’, pp. , .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
participation but for profit. The ‘man from the Pru’ became part of urban,
working-class neighbourhoods. Also, as urban neighbourhoods developed the
number of pawn shops kept pace, providing weekly sums integral to the
economy of many families. Pawnbroking differed between small towns and large
cities; in the former a pawnbroker could exert pressure on customers to redeem
parcels, while in larger cities, such as Leeds, with many pawnbrokers, any pres-
sure to redeem goods would merely drive customers to a competitor.
53
For those
who could afford it, orthodox and unorthodox medical practitioners provided
medical care. In Huddersfield, Wakefield and elsewhere self-medication – with
patent medicines whose sale made fortunes for still familiar names such as Boot,
Wellcome, Holloway and Beecham – was the source of much health care.
54
During the mid-nineteenth century voluntarism, with its three sectors, often
overlapping, provided a considerable network of welfare. Despite its variety,
there were several pervasive characteristics. Voluntarism depended on personal
initiative with individuals making active contributions to their own welfare; it
featured strong attachments to separate societies, valuing independence and
often resistant to affiliation; it was prone to overlap, competition, lack of unifor-
mity and inconsistency; and it was designed to instil habits of self-reliance and
sobriety in an urban setting, encouraging and sustaining independence and self-
maintenance.
The statutory sector was broadly complementary to voluntarism with much
legislation designed to enable and reinforce voluntarist practice. It remained small:
a minimal, localised state set the framework within which individual effort and
voluntary and local initiative could go forward. At the same time it also adopted
a paternalist, protective role, providing safeguards through factory legislation for
those who could not indulge in such pursuits and remained vulnerable.
55
Free trade policies promoted commercial prosperity and economic growth
enabling the urban able-bodied poor in theory to provide their own welfare by
mutual aid or self-help, while the permissive public health acts attempted to
enable cities and towns to remove other hindrances – dirt and disease – to the
urban population. At the same time, legislation attempted to encourage the activ-
ities of mutual aid and voluntary societies. Although the friendly societies were
ambivalent about any interference with their independence, the Friendly Society
Acts were intended to assist the societies to work efficiently and effectively, avoid-
ing bankruptcy and fraud. They embodied the absence of central compulsion
and discretion left to individual initiative which matched the emphasis on par-
ticipation and freedom of action so characteristic of voluntarism.
56
The provision of social services
53
Finlayson, Citizen, State and Social Welfare, pp. –; M. Tebbutt, Making Ends Meet (Leicester,
), pp. –; D. Vincent, Poor Citizens: The State and the Poor in Twentieth-Century Britain
(London, ), pp. –.
54
Marland, Medicine and Society, pp. –; A. Digby, Making a Medical Living (Cambridge, ).
55
Finlayson, Citizen, State and Social Welfare, p. .
56
Ibid., p. .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
In England the Poor Law Amendment Act, too, was intended to reduce
rates and increase self-help and mutual aid by removing the collective, local assis-
tance for the able-bodied which was deemed to undermine self-reliance. The
legislation may have encouraged the increase in the number of friendly societies
established after . Yet, the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the
New Poor Law in England were primarily concerned with rural problems and
expenditure: urban parishes were comparatively well run and efficient.
Nevertheless, in the following years controversies in urban unions forced adjust-
ments by the s that helped to make urban unions viable.
57
The anti-poor law movement and widespread northern urban opposition
emerged in the later s when the new central authority created by the
act sent its assistants to create the new unions of parishes under elected Boards
of Guardians who would carry out the requirements of the act. Urban par-
ishes, wanting to give outrelief to the able-bodied unemployed in periods of
trade depression, feared that, with their powers diluted in wider unions, a rigid
policy would be imposed on them, allowing relief for able-bodied men only in
the workhouse. The Poor Law Commissioners were forced to compromise, and
issued unions with a labour test order requiring some form of task work to test
the genuine need of able-bodied applicants. This was less costly than workhouse
provision and provided the flexibility required in urban areas to deal with periods
of ‘exceptional distress’.
58
Rating and settlement were equally important issues in the s and s
and led to reforms in the s that made the poor law more suited to urban
conditions. The act made no changes to the existing system of finance: as
the parish rather than the union remained the basic unit, parishes with the
highest relief paid most into the union’s common fund. This ‘narrow, local fiscal
base limited scope for spreading risk between rich and poor areas’.
59
At the same
time there were only minor changes in settlement so that entitlement, while ulti-
mately inclusive, was geographically limited. Rural parishes of settlement were
responsible for their migrants to urban areas until when Peel, to soften the
blow of the repeal of the Corn Laws on the landed interest, introduced the
concept of irremovability after continuous residence of five years. The cost of
the irremovable poor was placed on the union common fund instead of the
parish of residence, spreading the burden of relief and paving the way for the
union to take more of the financial responsibility from individual parishes.
But, the boundaries of unions rarely corresponded with the boundaries of
other administrative units of an urban area. In unions with an urban core and
rural parishes, the latter resented having to share, through their contribution to
the common fund, the new relief burdens of the urban cores; some rural par-
ishes broke away into separate rural unions, ‘sharpening the distinction between
Marguerite Dupree
57
M. E. Rose, ‘Introduction’, in M. E. Rose, ed., The Poor and the City (Leicester, ), pp. –.
58
Rose, ‘Introduction’, p. .
59
Daunton, ‘Introduction’, p. .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
the urban poor law and its rural counterpart’ and inadvertently creating homo-
geneous urban unions.
60
Legislation in changed the basis for assessing parish
contributions from relief expenditure to rateable value and in the union
became responsible for the assessment of property to the poor rate. Finally, the
Union Chargeability Act of established the union as the sole local author-
ity in poor law matters as it abolished separate parish expenditure so the whole
cost of relief fell on union funds, and the union rather than the parish became
the unit of settlement in which individuals resident for one year became irre-
movable.
Severe financial inequalities between unions in the larger towns and cities
remained, and issues of economy continued to preoccupy the meetings of many
Boards of Guardians. Nevertheless, the reforms of the s made the poor law
more suitable to urban conditions and provided a financial basis for the Goschen
Minute of which attempted to eliminate outdoor relief from competition
with voluntary provision and gave a boost to the COS and its efforts to cooper-
ate with the poor law to coordinate relief. Paradoxically, relief policy did not
reflect economic conditions: in the s when real incomes were rising the
policy was to restrict outdoor relief. The extent to which cooperation between
the COS and poor law guardians occurred varied greatly within London and
among urban unions in the North and Scotland. Most of the poor law unions
in the largest cities – London, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham – and in
some medium-size towns – Preston, Salford, Reading and Oxford – reduced the
proportion of paupers on outdoor relief to below per cent of the total number
of paupers. Indoor relief was ‘an urban strategy used extensively only in the
largest cities’.
61
In Scotland with some of the worst urban and rural poverty in the country,
the poor law differed significantly from that in England.
62
The old poor law
based on voluntary giving by the kirk session was not reformed until when,
in contrast to England, reform was designed to increase rather than restrict relief.
Overseen by a Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, the poor law compelled
parish boards to raise money to relieve the poor, though they could choose
whether to levy compulsory rates. The act, however, gave no right of relief
to the able-bodied, did not require parishes to build poor houses, though some
larger towns did within the limits of their finances, and was administered in small
parishes which encouraged parsimony. ‘At all times the Scottish system relied
less on indoor relief than the English’;
63
it was less expensive to give small
amounts of outdoor relief, and the able-bodied had no right to relief so indoor
relief was not a test. In Scotland there were separate parish administrations
containing less than per cent of the British population while there were only
The provision of social services
60
Rose, ‘Introduction’, p. .
61
Lees, Solidarities, p. .
62
This account of the Scottish poor law relies on Crowther, ‘Poverty, health and welfare’, pp.
–.
63
Ibid., p. .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
slightly over poor law unions in England and Wales; also, in Scotland there
was extreme variation in the size of parishes, from acres (. ha) to ,
acres (, ha) and from to over , inhabitants.
64
The Scottish poor law compounded the problems of urban poverty even more
than the English.
65
The Poor Law Act of increased the residence qualifi-
cation for settlement from three to five years; unaffected by the Union
Chargeability Act of in England and Wales, it was not reduced to three
years until . The small size of Scottish parishes made acquisition of settle-
ment more difficult and sharing the burden of relief across boundaries more
difficult. As a result charity had to fill many of the gaps.
(iii) ,
‒
From the s, while urbanisation continued until nearly four-fifths of the
British population lived in cities and towns on the eve of the First World War,
a series of economic, social, political and intellectual challenges cast doubt on
whether voluntarism and the complementary, minimal, localised state could and
should cope with the burden of poverty. In general the provision of social welfare
requires a greater degree of uniformity and higher level of minimum provision
than do public utilities and it became steadily clearer that local government, both
municipal and under the poor law, like voluntary provision, worked against uni-
versally adequate provision. Moreover, the local rate base even when augmented
by income from municipal enterprise was not sufficient to avoid an urban
financial crisis at the turn of the century.
66
New forms of voluntary and stat-
utory provision and a new balance of the ‘mixed economy’emerged which, nev-
ertheless, displayed many continuities with earlier theory and practice.
67
At the
same time, the reform of the income tax gave a more buoyant central tax system
compared to local rates and municipal enterprise.
68
Late nineteenth-century social investigations, most notably Charles Booth’s
study of London and Seebohm Rowntree’s study of the outwardly prosperous
cathedral town of York,
69
revealed – per cent of the inhabitants of cities and
towns in the UK were below the poverty line, without the income to meet a
minimum standard of physical efficiency. At the same time only – per cent of
the population of England and Wales and a slightly lower proportion in Scotland
were in receipt of poor relief. In Rowntree illuminated a way of life
strikingly independent of the regulations and officers of national or local
bureaucracies, with the poor in the city finding other ways of alleviating their
Marguerite Dupree
64
Ibid., pp. –, .
65
Ibid., p. .
66
See above, pp. ‒, .
67
Finlayson, Citizen, State and Social Welfare, p. .
68
Daunton, ‘Payment and participation’, –.
69
Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London, vols., rd edn (London, –);
B. Seebohm Rowntree, Poverty:A Study in Town Life (London, ).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
poverty, informally and through mutual aid and the voluntary and the commer-
cial sectors. With the welfare legislation of the Liberal government, ‘the
strategies of the poor and state began to impinge on each other in ever more
complex ways’,
70
with voluntarism, too, changing yet remaining very much in
evidence.
The informal provision of welfare continued to be pervasive. For households
in towns and cities, especially, there were opportunities for mothers to take on
part-time employment in their homes, taking in sewing, laundry or lodgers, and
a chance of finding some means of children’s employment for contributing to
family income and alleviating a family’s troubles. ‘In terms of the flow of cash
into the home, supplementary earnings were of far greater significance to the
poor than all forms of welfare combined.’
71
Whether in paid employment or
not, ‘women managing poor households created structures of mutual assistance
with other women within a short walk which supplied by far the most depend-
able and effective material and emotional support available to them outside their
own family’.
72
These networks took different forms in different types of urban
communities. For example, Elizabeth Roberts found that in Preston, but not in
Barrow or Lancaster, women paid relatives to look after children. Compared
with Barrow and Lancaster, in Preston there was relatively little migration, fam-
ilies were more likely to have extended kin living nearby and wives were full-
time textile workers. Only in Preston did she find evidence of paying relatives
for services; it was an integral part of the very closely knit family relationships
in the town where there was an expectation of sharing income beyond the
nuclear family to the kinship group. ‘Paying for services was the most obvious
way of sharing income, and moreover only appears to have taken place when
those providing the services had a smaller income than those paying for it.’
73
Sometimes those providing support were kin as in the case of the Lambeth
fish fryer who lost his job
owing to the business being sold and the new owner bringing in his own fryer.
The man had been getting s a week, and owed nothing. His wife’s brothers and
parents, who lived near by, combined to feed three of the four children; a certain
amount of coal was sent in; the rent was allowed to stand over by a sympathetic
landlady to whom the woman had been kind in her confinement.
74
But often it was neighbours brought together not by affection or calculation but
united by ‘a kind of mutual respect in the face of trouble’.
75
They could serve
as a defence against outside intervention as much as an alternative source of assis-
tance, and solidarity was often riven by tensions.
76
For example, rented accom-
modation facilitated mobility which constantly threatened structures of shared
The provision of social services
70
Vincent, Poor Citizens, p. .
71
Ibid., pp. –.
72
Ibid., p. .
73
E. Roberts, A Woman’s Place (Oxford, ), p. .
74
M. Pember Reeves, Round About a Pound a Week (London, ), p. .
75
Ibid., p. .
76
E. Ross, ‘Survival networks – women’s neighbourhood sharing in London before World War I’,
History Workshop, (), –.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
knowledge on which neighbourhood assistance was based. Yet, towns also
favoured networks of informal mutual assistance which once in place could serve
as an incentive to residential stability.
77
Still, the resources for neighbourhood
assistance, so important in the short term, were limited. Relatives and neigh-
bours supported the Lambeth fish fryer and his family for nine weeks until he
obtained another position; ‘a magistrate calculated that neighbours, together
with local sources of credit, could sustain a deserted mother and her children for
about two weeks’.
78
Mutual aid was thriving in the form of stocking clubs (for children’s winter
stockings), crockery clubs and Christmas dinner clubs involving a weekly
payment of d. or d. until the object had been attained.
79
Friendly societies,
however, experienced financial difficulties. Sales of sickness insurance were
declining as the less well-off third of the working class could not afford the
weekly subscriptions; there was competition for members; and the proportion
of ageing members increased. By the s James Riley argues that friendly soci-
eties ‘lost their nerve’. Members began to yield to advice and direction they had
formerly resisted and there was less enthusiasm for the social aspects of the move-
ment.
80
Although the friendly societies provided medical care for members
under their control, only a portion of working-class men and very few women
benefited.
Community-based charities continued to be important and some new phil-
anthropic endeavours began such as Barnardos, the Salvation Army and the set-
tlement house movement. Overall the contributions of charity to relief
exceeded that of outrelief under the poor law, but their proportions in the mix
varied considerably among cities and towns, even among those with similar
overall levels of spending as indicated in the rough estimates in Table .. In
– Bristol and Birmingham, with relatively high overall levels, had quite
different proportions for charity and the poor law, with the poor law account-
ing for per cent of relief in Bristol and only per cent in Birmingham.
Similarly, at relatively low levels of overall spending, Sunderland relied heavily
on the Poor Law ( per cent) and Exeter relatively little ( per cent). In general,
charities relying on voluntary contributions provided more relief than endowed
charities, but some older cities, such as Norwich, relied more heavily on
endowed charity, while newer cities, such as Leeds and Birmingham, relied more
on voluntary contributions.
Yet, overall the limitations of philanthropy became apparent during the later
nineteenth century. Demand increased faster than the incessant, competitive
search for funds could supply it, and doubts emerged about the effectiveness and
Marguerite Dupree
77
Pember Reeves, Round About a Pound a Week, pp. –.
78
Ibid., p. ; Vincent, Poor Citizens, p. .
79
Pember Reeves, Round About a Pound a Week, p. .
80
C. Riley, Sick Not Dead (Baltimore and London, ), pp. –.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
adequacy of social welfare provision based on the voluntary sector. Despite the
efforts of the COS to coordinate and to categorise by casework, the disjointed
and disorganised nature of charitable effort persisted. As mentioned above, some
towns and large cities – particularly some parts of London such as Marylebone,
Kensington, St George’s in the East, Stepney, Whitechapel, Paddington,
Camberwell and Islington – applied COS principles, to the extent that outdoor
relief was nearly abolished, yet others did not.
The North-East of England illustrates the variations among similar urban areas
and the local influences leading to such differences. Facing unemployment that
was urban, industrial and temporary in the North-East were a number of active
COS branches, yet they did not cover the entire urban North-East and achieved
mixed results in terms of both casework and cooperation with poor law author-
ities.
81
In West Hartlepool where there was exceptionally close cooperation
The provision of social services
81
Keith Gregson, ‘Poor law and organised charity: the relief of exceptional distress in North-East
England, –’, in Rose, ed., The Poor and the City (Leicester, ), pp. –.
Table . The mix of charity and outdoor poor relief in certain English towns
c. –: percentage of total annual expenditure on relief
Endowed Voluntary Poor law
charities charities outrelief Total
(%) (%) (%) (£)
Bristol ,
Birmingham ,
Leeds ,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne ,,
Sheffield ,,
Leicester ,,
Norwich ,,
Sunderland ,,
Exeter ,,
These estimates are derived from the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief
of Distress which compiled a ‘relief budget’ for ‘a few typical cities, towns and villages’.
The figures are for the total annual income for the endowed and voluntary charities,
and for the total annual expenditure on outrelief. The Royal Commission assumed that
all the charities’ annual income was expended on relief.
Sources: for Birmingham, Leicester, Leeds and Sunderland PP (Cd ), Royal
Commission on the Poor Laws, Appendix vol. , pp. –. For Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, Sheffield, Norwich, Bristol and Exeter: for charities ibid., p. ; and for annual
expenditure on outrelief PP (), Annual Local Tax Returns –, pt , pp.
–.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
between the COS and the guardians, there was a continuous link between the
two with cross-membership between the Board of Guardians and the commit-
tee of the society and close contact between the poor law officers and the COS.
The clerk and one of the two relieving officers were long-time members of the
COS. West Hartlepool joined Kendal, Norwich, Oxford, Whitechapel and
Marylebone, in having a close relationship between the COS and the poor law,
but stood in stark contrast to the neighbouring union centred on Stockton
where there was little organised charity even in periods of exceptional need and
little cooperation between organised charity and the poor law. In Darlington
there was much charitable activity, but despite the pressure of a COS branch, it
cherished its independence, was not afraid to be called indiscriminate, and
clashed with the poor law. The North-East as a whole featured ‘all shades of
activity from an almost total lack of charitable effort and cooperation with the
poor law through cooperation to a cooperation verging on integration’.
82
Not only did the COS fail to achieve cooperation through overlapping mem-
bership with the poor law guardians in most unions, but in major cities such as
Manchester and Bradford church and missionary societies, expanding their
efforts in the later nineteenth century, remained aloof from the COS in order to
apply their own, far wider criteria to determine who was deserving of relief. In
some cases they became an alternative to the poor law. Yet, church-initiated
efforts to coordinate the work of charities, criticised by the COS for indiscrim-
inate giving which undermined the responsibilities of families, failed because of
denominational rivalries.
83
The culmination of the search for a solution to social problems by means of
charity organisation were the guilds of help and the councils of social welfare
which grew up in the Edwardian period in an attempt to coordinate the provi-
sion of welfare at the town level. These new forms of charity organisation and
personal service societies drew on civic consciousness and the failure of the COS
both to coordinate local charity and to determine the ‘helpable’, and by
they developed into the National Council of Social Services.
84
The first Guild of Help was launched in Bradford in September ; by
there were seventy such bodies mainly located in the North of England where
the COS was weakest. The guilds were influenced by the German Elberfeld
system where all relief was administered by the municipality on a district basis
with no full-time officials: the work was undertaken by unpaid helpers appointed
Marguerite Dupree
82
Ibid., p. .
83
A. Kidd, ‘Charity organisation and the unemployed in Manchester, c. –’, Soc.Hist.,
(), –; M. Cahill and T. Jowitt, ‘The new philanthropy: the emergence of the Bradford
City Guild of Help’, Journal of Social Policy, (), ; J. Lewis, ‘The boundary between vol-
untary and statutory social service in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’, HJ,
(), .
84
A. Olechnowicz, Working-Class Housing in England between the Wars (Oxford, ), esp. ch. .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
to visit and assist those in need, combining the functions of a relieving officer
and a COS visitor. The guilds emphasised the importance of friendly visiting in
order to foster a sense of civic responsibility for poverty. As city-wide attempts
to help the poor through voluntary service, these guilds differed from the COS
in three ways. The guilds recruited helpers from the whole populations, claim-
ing that per cent were working class though recent studies show the Bradford,
Halifax, Bolton and Poole guilds were mainly middle class. Also, any citizen
could be helped; the guilds refused to draw a boundary line between poor law
and charity clients, insisting that no one was ‘unhelpable’. In addition, they were
prepared to cooperate with new state legislation and the new organisations it
created. The name was chosen to avoid class, political and religious distinctions.
Its strategy, however, was to coopt churches into its work, and it succeeded
because its emphasis on visiting and refusal to grant direct relief appealed to
charity organisations such as the District Provident Society (DPS) in Manchester
while it adopted the less exclusive approach of mission workers. The Reading
guild’s central board of management had representatives from forty-five groups,
linking charitable and religious work in the town,
85
and many visitors for the
guilds had been visitors for church and mission charities. The Manchester guild
developed in after traditional relief measures proved inadequate in the face
of unemployment in – when poor law funds could not be used to subsid-
ise relief work, forcing the municipal authority to do so in a time of financial
crisis. The chairman was the lord mayor, but it involved no local authority
expenditure. It was a surrogate for municipal action.
The councils of social welfare, in contrast to the guilds’ emphasis on personal
social work, put more emphasis on securing cooperation within a district,
through joint machinery, unlike the COS which advocated only common mem-
bership with the guardians. In Hampstead, for example, the council had repre-
sentatives from the COS, the local authority and the guardians, who referred all
cases to the council, which cooperated with local authorities in the provision of
infant and maternal welfare centres.
86
Thus, at a time when the nature of state
provision was changing, the COS was becoming increasingly isolated by insist-
ing on maintaining its firm commitment to separate spheres for voluntary agen-
cies and the state with a small sphere for a deterrent state relief system based on
distinguishing between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’. The guilds and coun-
cils differed in the extent to which they were prepared for voluntary activity to
be tied to the state by joint machinery or financial aid. However, they were
similar in welcoming the state’s becoming the provider of first resort and volun-
tary agencies playing a complementary role, after a renegotiation of the division
of labour between state and voluntary activity so it was task-based and not
The provision of social services
85
S. Yeo, Religion and Voluntary Organisations in Crisis, ‒ (London, ), p. .
86
Lewis, ‘Boundary’, .
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008