PREPARING FOR THE UNEMPLOYED ACT
Principles for dealing with Unemployed--Twenty-four Per Cent. of
Poplar's Wage-earners out of Work--Folly of Stone-breaking and
Oakum-picking--Public Warning by Crooks and Canon Barnett--How
Crooks used a Gift of £1,000.
Crooks's three years in Mr. Balfour's Parliament had a remarkable
triumph in the Unemployed Act. No one needs reminding that the measure
was introduced by the Government; but as the sequel will show, it is
doubtful whether it would have seen the light, and it is certain it
would never have been passed but for his untiring advocacy.
This was so far recognised at the time that one of the bitterest
opponents of the measure, Sir William Chance, a stern disciple of the
Charity Organisation Society, described it as "a Poplar Bill framed to
meet Poplar's needs."
So it was. For Poplar's needs just then were the needs of the
unemployed. And the unemployed's needs were the same all the country
over. The Bill was introduced about the time the Poplar Guardians took a
census of the unemployed in typical working-class streets in the
district, revealing over twenty-four per cent. of the wage-earners out
of work.
The Bill was based on the principle which had guided Crooks in all his
dealings with the unemployed. The only sound way to help an unemployed
man, he maintains, is by work rather than by relief. The condition he
imposes on the provision of such work is that it must be useful. He will
have nothing to do with "works" provided only as "relief." Work that is
not useful can never relieve.
His agitation in Parliament put the crown on fifteen years of laborious
striving to make the State admit a duty to its unemployed citizens.
As far back as September, 1893, he was appealing in the _Daily
Chronicle_ to the Board of Trade and the Thames Conservancy to help in
allaying the threatened distress of the coming winter by reclaiming
foreshores. His appeal was taken up at the time by other papers, which
complimented him upon the practical common-sense character of his
proposals.
Somewhere in the archives of the Board of Trade that scheme of his
doubtless lies buried to this day. He is still confident it will be
carried out some time. He is fond of saying that it takes Parliament
seven years to grasp a new idea and seven more to carry it out.
Compressed into a few lines in his own words, the story of his effort
runs in this way:--"It was in the November of 1893 that in consequence
of what I had been saying at public meetings and in the Press, I was
urged to lay the scheme before Mr. Mundella, who was President of the
Board of Trade at the time. There was great suffering that winter, and
the Local Government Board advised all the local authorities to put in
hand as much public work as possible. Well and good, I said, but let the
Government do the same. I pointed out that under the Foreshores Act of
1866 the Board of Trade had power to reclaim land. Again, under an Act
of 1857 the Thames Conservancy could reclaim miles of foreshore in and
below London. I showed that this was just the kind of work to absorb
unskilled labour, and supplied examples of the success of reclaiming
land on the banks of the Forth and the Tay and on the Lincolnshire
coast."
As his Poor Law duties crowded heavily upon him he had opportunities as
a Guardian of carrying out in his own district his guiding principle in
regard to the provision of useful work. He found the usual "task" work
going on in the workhouse. He saw its degrading uselessness and
abolished it. In place of oakum-picking and stone-breaking he
substituted useful and profitable work like clothes-making, laundry
work, bread-baking, wood-chopping, painting, and cleaning.
For every ton of oakum picked in the workhouse the ratepayers were
involved in an expenditure of £10. The Guardians were often glad to get
rid of the oakum when picked by returning it free to the firm supplying
it. At the best they got 2s. 6d. per ton for it.
To a man like Crooks, holding firmly to Ruskin's theory that the
employment of persons on a useless business cannot relieve ultimate
distress, all work of that kind was wicked as well as wasteful.
He told his own Board so very plainly in 1895. It was a bitter winter.
River and docks were frozen for weeks, closing the door against work to
half the men in Poplar. The Guardians were besieged by starving
families. Well-nigh in despair the Board arranged that the relieving
officers should send the out-of-work men to break stones at three
stoneyards specially opened in different parts of the district.
"It's a mistake," he argued. "You are putting men to break stones which
nobody wants. You are wasting men and money by inventing work which is
utterly useless. Plenty of useful work can be found with care and
organisation."
After six disastrous weeks the Guardians admitted he was right. Only the
worst class of men went into the stoneyards. He showed that this work of
breaking stones was costing £3 2s. 6d. per yard, whereas the work could
be done outside at trade union rate of wages for 2s. 6d. per yard.
When the stoneyards were closed and it became known to the loafers
thriving under the system that Crooks was responsible, they threatened
his life. These men knew they had been sent to the stoneyard simply to
justify the Guardians in paying them wages. They grumbled and idled most
of the time. Self-respecting men out of work refused to mix with them.
Some time later Crooks joined with Canon Barnett, George Lansbury, and
others in a letter to the _Times_ and the Press generally, uttering a
note of warning to municipal authorities against "made work" for the
unemployed. This joint letter stated:--
Made work tends to be regarded as a source of relief rather than of
earnings. It is often as tempting to the idler as it is repugnant
to the self-respecting workman....
We would therefore submit that the municipalities which may decide
to take part in meeting present needs could best do so by leaving
distinctively "relief" duties to Guardians and other agencies; by
starting and carrying on, as good employers, works which have a
definite public advantage, and by requiring of each worker the best
work during a continuous period under thorough supervision.
The most successful scheme for relieving distress with which Crooks was
associated in the severe winters of the early 'nineties was one on which
a dozen years later the Unemployed Act was based. It represented
co-operation between a committee of citizens and the local authorities.
The Committee was formed in the first instance as a relief committee by
the Rector of Poplar. When Crooks joined at the rector's request and
found himself sitting among none but parsons, representing every
denomination in the district, he told them their first duty was to widen
their ranks.
"You will never do anything so long as your committee is confined to
gentlemen like these," he told the clerical chairman. "What you need is
to get hold of trade union secretaries and the secretaries of the
friendly and temperance societies and members of working men's clubs.
They will soon discriminate between the waster and the deserving man.
The waster is always boasting that parsons are so easily deceived."
Besides the Labour men, representatives of other classes were invited to
join the committee. The Bishop of London and Canon Scott Holland backed
up the Committee's appeal to the public for funds, and about £5,000 was
raised to meet Poplar's needs.
It was amusing to see how often the working men members had to undeceive
the parsons. One good vicar tearfully brought forward several cases
which the Labour men proved had been manufactured for him by
professional cadgers.
"I have never known a distress committee to equal that one," was
Crooks's verdict.
It taught him that a shilling given to an unemployed man for work done
was better than a sovereign given simply as charity.
Ever since he has steadily worked for the unemployed under that
conviction. He changed that committee from a relief committee into a
committee for providing work.
In its second winter he received an offer for the unemployed of £1,000
from Mr. A. F. Hills, of the Thames Ironworks, on condition that he
should raise a similar sum. He took the offer at once to the Poplar
District Board, the precursor of the Borough Council. They agreed to
vote another £1,000, and to put men to work on repaving roads and
lime-whiting courts and alleys. So far was the local authority
satisfied with the way the work was done that, after spending Mr.
Hills's £1,000 in wages and the second £1,000 they themselves had
promised, they voted another £3,000 during the prevalence of the
distress.
Meanwhile, Crooks had brought about co-operation between the rector's
Distress Committee and the local authority. The Committee went on as
usual investigating the condition of families, with the great advantage
of now being able to offer a job rather than relief to the out-of-work
husband.
"When we came to starving families, as we did very often, we fed them up
until the man was able to go to work. As soon as a man was able to work
we sent him to the local authority. If he failed to turn up for the
work, but came round later for relief, he got this answer: 'We can't
afford to play the fool in this business. If you won't turn up to work
you can't be in distress. All we can do for you now is to put you at the
bottom of our list. When we reach your name again we'll give you one
more chance. If you don't take the work then, don't come here any more.'
"Of course, the cost of the labour to the District Board was somewhat
higher than it would have been in the hands of skilled road-makers. You
must always allow for a loss due to the want of experience (as well as
the want of food) when you engage unemployed men. But remember we had a
free gift of £1,000 from Mr. Hills, which more than met the extra
expense, so that the ratepayers lost nothing. On the other hand, the
community got something that it needed. How much better, then, to pay
this little difference in price by employing out-of-work men on public
works than by giving them relief under the guise of stone-breaking,
which costs the community over £3 per ton when it can be done in the
open market for 2s. 6d. a ton."
The winter that witnessed this scheme was described as "a red-letter one
in the history of the unemployed difficulty in the East End of London."
The words appear in the report of the Poplar District Board. In summing
up what had been done, the Board further stated that "on every ground
much good has been accomplished and a valuable lesson learned." The
Board also thanked the local Relief Committee and Mr. Hills and Crooks
personally for their co-operation.
The lesson that had been learned saw fruit in the Unemployed Act a dozen
years later.