"Homes," where those who wish to devote themselves to the service of
the poor can live together, consecrating their whole life to the work.
I must here express my conviction that we want very much more the
influence that emanates not from "a Home," but from "homes." One looks
with reverence on the devotion of those who, leaving domestic life,
are ready to sacrifice all in the cause of the poor, and give up time,
health, and strength in the effort to diminish the great mass of sin
and sorrow that is in the world. I have seen faces shining like St.
Stephen's with sight of heaven beyond the pain and sin. I have seen
shoulders bent as St. Christopher's might have been--better in angels'
sight than upright ones. I have seen hair turned gray by sorrow shared
with others. And before such, one bends with reverence. But I am sure
we ought to desire to have as workers, joyful, strong, many-sided
natures, and that the poor, tenderly as they may cling to those who,
as it were, cast in their lots amongst them, are better for the bright
visits of those who are strong, happy, and sympathetic.
"Send me," said one day a poor woman, who did not even know the
visitor's name, "the lady with the sweet smile and the bright golden
hair."
The work amongst the poor is, in short, better done by those who do
less of it, or rather, who gain strength and brightness in other ways.
I hope for a return to the old fellowship between rich and poor; to
a solemn sense of relationship; to quiet life side by side; to men
and women coming out from bright, good, simple homes, to see, teach,
and learn from the poor; returning to gather fresh strength from home
warmth and love, and seeing in their own homes something of the spirit
which should pervade all.
I believe that educated people would come forward if once they saw how
they could be really useful, and without neglecting nearer claims. Let
us reflect that hundreds of workers are wanted; that if they are to
preserve their vigor they must not be over-worked; and that each of us
who might help and holds back not only leaves work undone, but injures,
to a certain extent, the work of others. Let each of us not attempt
too much, but take some one little bit of work, and, doing it simply,
thoroughly, and lovingly, wait patiently for the gradual spread of
good, and leave to professional workers to deal for the present with
the great mass of evil around.
To recapitulate, then, let me say that I think the operations of the
Charity Organization Society have been wholly beneficial so far, but
that it will have to secure more extended personal influence between
rich and poor if it is to be permanently successful. As a society it is
doing its work; it is contending for justice and order; it has urged
us not to corrupt our fellow-citizens; it has instituted inquiries in
support of truth; it has responsible officers; it is an upholder of
method, and it will help us to be swift, just, and sure in our gifts.
But it can never be a more living educational body than the law is. The
society can never be a vital, loving, living force; it can never wake
up enthusiasm, nor gently lead wanderers, nor stir by unexpected mercy,
nor strengthen by repeated words of guidance. The ground once cleared
by it, the work remains for individuals to carry on.
OCTAVIA HILL.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] N. B.--To save confusion, the District Committee of the Charity
Organization Society is throughout this paper spoken of as the Charity
Organization Society. This seemed the simplest way to distinguish it
from the Relief Committee.
[7] "The Charity Organization Society" is the short title of "The
Society for Organizing Charitable Relief and Repressing Mendicity,"
which was established in London in 1869. It was formed with the
intention of remedying acknowledged abuses in the administration
of charitable relief; and also to repress the profitable trade of
mendicity, pursued by many who had no claim upon the public for
support. The society does not confine its operations to these two
branches, but aims at improving the condition of the poor, by enabling
them to help themselves rather than by giving them alms. It has,
accordingly, originated inquiry into the causes of distress and
poverty, and has issued reports upon night refuges, soup-kitchens,
crêches or public day nurseries, dispensaries, district visiting,
systematic inquiry into the cases of applicants for relief and
employment, and kindred subjects.
The affairs of the society are managed by a central council, holding
periodical meetings, and which consists of some of the most influential
citizens of London. The chairman and Hon. secretary of each district
committee are ex-officio members of the council. There are at present
thirty-five of these district committees, or branches, covering nearly
the whole area of the metropolis, with its population of quite three
millions. Each district committee has its permanent office. In some
districts there are two such offices, with a small staff of paid
officials; but nearly all the work is done by volunteers. The expenses
of the central society are covered by special subscriptions. This
fund is entirely distinct from the maintenance funds of the different
district committees.
The districts are divided into smaller sub-districts or sub-divisions,
usually following the existing legal boundaries; and the co-operation
of the resident clergy, of all denominations, is always invited,
as well as that of all existing charitable relief agencies. The
sub-district in which Miss Octavia Hill has done such a remarkable
work is that of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square, a portion of the
very large parish and Poor Law district of St. Marylebone, London.
Co-operation has here been secured between four agencies engaged
in the administration of charitable relief. These are the Board of
Guardians of the Poor, answering to our City Commissioners of Charities
or County Superintendents of the Poor; the St. Marylebone District
Committee of the Charity Organization Society; the Relief Committee,
and the District Visitors. Miss Hill acts as Referee for all. She is
the medium of communication through which each agency knows what the
other is doing, thus enabling it to deal intelligently with each case
of distress which comes before it. The visitors also obtain information
for the School Board.--ED.
RELIEF--OFFICIAL AND VOLUNTEER AGENCIES IN ADMINISTERING.
_10th January, 1874._
SIR:
In accordance with your request, I beg to furnish an account of the
system now in operation in a part of the parish of Marylebone, which
aims at establishing a complete combination of official and volunteer
agencies in dealing with Poor Law cases.
The attention of Poor-Law reformers has been much directed of late
years to the administration of out-door relief in Elberfeld. The
success of the system pursued there is no longer doubtful. It has
been in operation for years; and the report presented to the Local
Government Board by their inspector, after his visit, has proved how
powerful it is in diminishing pauperism. In the first place, it is
shown that the employment of numerous volunteer visitors has there
formed a check on imposture, such as our relieving officers, owing to
the size of their districts, cannot possibly supply; and secondly, that
it has been found possible to adopt there much more radical measures
for removing poverty than are here adopted. The poor are divided into
groups, each group consisting of a few families, and each cluster
of families is committed to the special care and supervision of an
intelligent visitor, who goes in and out among them, making himself
acquainted with their daily lives, their past history, their present
resources and circumstances.
This being so, an account of an organization based on the same
principles, and existing in our own country, gains an interest which
it otherwise would not possess, and claims attention, though it covers
a small area only, though it is tentative, and has not as yet been
in operation more than one year. If the scheme succeeds and spreads,
we may fairly hope much from it. It is as yet in its infancy, and no
formal opinion as to its working has been pronounced by the Marylebone
Board of Guardians; but individual members of that Board have expressed
their warm approval, the clerk and the relieving officer appear much
pleased with the plan, and at present there are no signs of failure,
nor does any modification even appear necessary.
I proceed, therefore, to give an account of the system as at present in
operation, and will show afterwards its resemblance to the Elberfeld
plan, its chief difference from it, and the reason such marked
difference is necessary here and now.
At the end of 1872 it came under the notice of the Guardians of St.
Marylebone that there existed in a part of their parish--the division
known as St. Mary's, Bryanston Square,--a body of district visitors
differing in some measure from any to be found in other parts of
London. Their special training was due to the fact that soon after the
Charity Organization Society was founded, the rector of St. Mary's had
determined to reform his system of distributing the funds entrusted to
him for charitable purposes, whilst still using the district visitors
as his agents. To this end he made over the whole of these funds
to a small committee, the St. Mary's Relief Committee, composed of
men of various classes, who had given special attention to the wise
administration of aid to the poor. Every applicant for help throughout
St. Mary's had henceforth to appear before this committee, who were
guided in their decision as to his case both by a report from the
Marylebone branch of the Charity Organization Society, and by one
from the visitor in whose district he resided. Thus a thorough and
efficient inquiry was secured. They also aimed at making relief more
adequate than formerly; refusing small grants, which would only give
temporary and illusory aid, and endeavoring, by means of employment,
emigration, loans to enable people to start afresh in life, and so on,
to give real and permanent assistance. This committee I was asked to
join, as, having a seat on the Marylebone Charity Organization Society,
I could form a personal link between the inquiring and the relieving
bodies, in addition to the written link which the report on each case
afforded. I was also asked to act as referee, that is, to communicate
the decisions of the committee to the visitor, who was requested to
dispense the aid voted or inform the applicant of the reason of its
refusal. In this capacity of referee, I formed a sort of center for the
district visitors; it became my duty to give advice when asked, and to
instruct new or inexperienced visitors in the nature of their duties
and the principles they were expected to adopt. Each visitor had to
keep a book, in which the name of every applicant was entered, together
with the information obtained about him through the local branch of the
Charity Organization Society. An account of all money given to him by
any charitable agency, and a short notice from month to month of the
events in his family were also entered. Each book contained the facts
relating to residents in one court or street only, and was always in
the hands of the visitor of that court, temporary or permanent; an
alphabetical index enabled her to turn at once to the account of any
given family.
The result of this system was to train a body of visitors in judicious
and organized modes of work. The light thrown upon cases of applicants
by the Charity Organization Society, the advantages afforded by
practical work under an experienced committee, and the power of
watching individual cases of distress through a long period of their
history (a power which small districts and written records materially
increase), were all important elements in the education of these
visitors.
When this system had been in operation two or three years, it
became clear that these volunteer visitors might be valuable to
the relieving officer, if they could be brought into communication
with him, and that a mass of information had been collected in their
district-books, which might be of service to the Guardians if it
could be made available at the right moment. But the attempt to
bring them into direct communication with any official would have
been open to many objections. Confusions might arise when visitors
were absent; new visitors would occasionally have to be appointed,
and to have their work explained to them. No relieving officer would
have time to undertake this duty, nor even to communicate with so
large and fluctuating a body as that formed by these volunteers. The
Guardians, therefore, resolved to recognize one of these volunteers
as representing the whole body. The referee would be a connecting
link between themselves and the visitors, and through her only, all
communications would pass. I was asked to fill this position with
relation to the Guardians, for one reason, because I was already a
member both of the Relief Committee before mentioned, and the committee
of the Charity Organization Society, and the recognized medium of
communication between these two bodies.
After the combination of volunteer and official agency had thus been
arranged, which was in the winter of 1872-3, the Guardians directed
the relieving officer who is in charge of the St. Mary's Poor Law
District, to send me daily a list containing the name of each applicant
from that district, with his address, ages of family, and nature of
application.[8] I send out the information at once to the visitor in
whose court the applicant resides, with a blank form[9] on which she
may report any facts bearing on the character and circumstances of the
family, which appear to her to be such as the Poor Law authorities
ought to know. She can report by giving a summary of the information
contained in her district-book, and return the form at once, or she can
re-visit the applicant and give later information in addition if she
deems it necessary. She sends her report to me, and I forward it to the
relieving officer, who uses it as he may see fit. In many instances
it gives information which the relieving officer might not otherwise
possess, as, for instance, that an applicant is in receipt of money
paid by the visitor, or known by her to be paid by local charity. In
other cases the report gives clues for further investigation by him, as
where it mentions the existence of grown-up sons and daughters who may
be able to give help.[10] After the weekly meeting of the board, I am
informed of the decision arrived at in each case, by a list sent to me
similar to that furnished to every Guardian. These particulars I send
to the visitors of the courts where applicants reside, and they are
entered in the several district-books. The average number of applicants
in the Poor Law District of St. Mary's is forty-five weekly, and the
number of visitors engaged in the work is thirty-five. The number of
visitors has doubled during the last year, so that we have subdivided
all the larger courts and streets. Additional clergymen are coming into
active co-operation with us, and some few gentlemen have come forward
to act as visitors. These may all be considered hopeful signs that the
movement is gaining ground.
It will be seen from this outline, that in St. Mary's district there
are four agencies employed in the endeavor to administer relief to the
necessitous in the wisest and most really helpful way: the Guardians,
with their relieving officer, the Charity Organization Society, the
Relief Committee, and the District Visitors. These four agencies are
connected and brought into efficient co-operation by the referee,
who directs and superintends the visitors, attends the meetings of
the Charity Organization Society, and of the Relief Committee, and is
the medium through which the Board of Guardians acquire information
otherwise inaccessible to them.
The immediate direct effect of the adoption of this system upon
the Poor Law cases may be slight; it may be that the information
supplied by the district visitors does not in many instances modify
the decisions of the Board; but this is the least part of the work.
If the visitors really learn their duties, and apprehend the spirit
of the system they have undertaken to carry out, it is impossible to
measure the effect which the work may have in diminishing pauperism
and inducing more provident habits of life among our laboring classes;
and thus, along with other advantages, reducing the heavy burden of
the poor-rates. The connection with the Poor Law system is calculated
to be of great advantage to the visitors. They will learn something of
its working; they will be enabled to use with much greater effect and
with much greater frequency the lever which distaste for the "House"
puts into their hands; and knowing that while the workhouse exists
even the idle and improvident and reckless need not starve, they will
be encouraged to refuse to such persons the pauperizing doles of a
merely impulsive charity, in the belief that such refusal will probably
benefit the individual, and will certainly in the long run benefit the
class.
The plan described resembles the one in operation at Elberfeld,
inasmuch as it is based on the same principle; sub-division of work
among a large number of volunteer visitors, grouped under recognized
though unpaid leaders. As in Elberfeld, we have not sought to enlist
visitors who can give their whole time to the work. We want those
living in their own homes, surrounded by their own interests and
connections, and who can bring individual sympathy and thought to bear
on a very few families. A large number of visitors are needed, and
we could not obtain them if those only were eligible who could give
a large amount of time to the work. Even more intimate knowledge of
individual families is secured in Marylebone than we have any evidence
of in the case of Elberfeld, because here in their own small districts
the visitors undertake duties for other bodies as well as for the
Guardians. Our volunteers are constantly in the courts, on business
connected with the local charities, with the Charity Organization
Society, and also with the School Board: and though I must not here
enlarge on the particular form of their work for these different
bodies, I may point out that the entire truth is better elicited by
those who come into communication with the poor in various ways: facts
concealed from them in one capacity being revealed to them in another.
For example, the desire on the part of parents to represent the ages of
children to the Poor Law visitor as young enough to receive parochial
relief, is counteracted by their desire to represent them to the school
board visitor as old enough to exempt them from attendance at school.
The important difference between the Elberfeld and Marylebone systems
is that, whereas in Elberfeld the volunteers themselves decide on the
parochial relief, our volunteers have no such authority committed
to them. It would be a fundamental change of the gravest nature to
throw any share of such responsibility on the visitor, and would be a
change not only disastrous, until the visitors have more experience,
but in my opinion probably unadvisable even in the future. The large
discretionary power exercised by Guardians under our English Poor Law
(which contrasts with the very definite scale for out-door relief in
use at Elberfeld) would make it an additional difficulty to place the
decisions as to grants in the hands of visitors. In fact, in every
case, so that only the evidence brought before him be sufficient, it is
easier for a judge or arbitrator to deal in a uniform manner with cases
which come before him when he is not brought into close communication
with those whom his decision affects. So that the division of duty
in Marylebone, where the visitor brings information and the Guardians
vote relief, appears to be the right one. It is, moreover, a real help
to the visitor in maintaining a satisfactory footing among the people
under her charge, for them to know that, though she will listen to and
represent their claims for relief, the absolute award of it does not
rest with her.
I may perhaps here point out that there is one small addition to
the system, which, though it would be of no direct advantage to the
Poor Law authorities, would be of great service to those who are
administering the local charities. I have already mentioned that the
Guardians send to me as referee an official weekly report of the cases
decided by them; but the grounds of their decision are not given, and
often they may be such as would, if known to us, influence grants from
the charities. If the Guardians saw no objection to allowing one or
two representative volunteers to be present at their weekly meetings,
this information would reach us fully and regularly. It would also
afford guidance to the visitors if we could know to what extent the
information furnished by them to the relieving officer is received and
acted upon.
There is one further addition to the scheme which has been suggested.
It has been said that it might be well to empower the volunteers to pay
the regular out-door relief of the aged at their own homes, instead
of compelling them, as at present, to gather at the workhouse door to
receive it. As to the advantages of this plan I have as yet come to
no decision. On the one hand, it is a gain that the poor should not
be obliged to congregate for relief, which has a pauperizing effect
upon them; and moreover the weekly visitation of the home would form
a regular method of inspection. On the other hand, as I have I stated
above, the less the visitor is contemplated as an almoner, the more
independent and satisfactory are her relations likely to be with her
people,--and I fear the distinction between bringing and giving relief
would not be very clear to recipients.
In conclusion, I may say that the system described above, would, when
perfectly carried out, ensure that out-door relief should be confined
to the deserving, and that drunken and idle people should be offered
the workhouse only. Thus far our volunteer workers are fully aware of
the objects for which they are associated together. But I am myself
satisfied that the scheme is capable of a far deeper influence on the
condition of the poor, when the volunteers shall rise to the perception
that, in dealing with poverty, they must aim at prevention rather
than at cure; at saving those under their influence from sinking to
the Poor-law Level, rather than merely obtaining relief for them when
they have reached that low point. Few of my fellow-workers have as
yet grasped the idea that their best success would be to develop the
resources of the poor themselves, instead of letting them come upon the
rates, or continue upon them. I think they rarely set before themselves
the desire to find some employment, at hand or far off, which may
support the young widow and her children before she has tasted parish
bread. I think they rarely press upon the old woman the duty of first
trying if the successful son cannot support her, or the daughters in
service unite to do so. They have not yet watched the poor closely
enough to see that this would be in reality the truest kindness. They
forget the dignity of self-maintenance, they forget the blessing of
drawing the bonds of relationship closer, and dwell only upon the fact
that the applicant is deserving--see only the comfort or relief which
the parish allowance would secure.
How far they can raise the people by degrees above the degrading need
of charitable or Poor Law relief, to be energetic, self-reliant,
provident, and industrious, will depend upon the height of their own
hope, the patience of their own labor, the moral courage which will
teach them to prefer being helpful to being popular, and finally to the
temper and spirit of their own homes and lives. For, say what we may,
if our upper class were to become extravagant, improvident, and showy,
it would be aped by those below it, even though as surely it would be
despised. And if we desire to be the leaders of our poor into the ways
of happy prosperity, we must order our homes in exactly the same spirit
as theirs must be ordered, in simplicity, industry, and providence.
I have, etc.
OCTAVIA HILL.
_To the Right Honorable_
_James Stansfeld, M. P._
FOOTNOTES:
[8] A copy of the form is appended to this letter.
[9] A copy of this form filled in with a specimen report is also
appended.