Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress. : Appendix Volume IV. Minutes of evidence (72nd to 89th days) with appendix. [This volume contains he oral and written evidence of the British Medical Association and of witnesses fromn the following provincial urban centres:- Liverpool and Manchester District; West Yorkshire; Midland towns].

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress. : Appendix Volume IV. Minutes of evidence (72nd to 89th days) with appendix. [This volume contains he oral and written evidence of the British Medical Association and of witnesses fromn the following provincial urban centres:- Liverpool and Manchester District; West Yorkshire; Midland towns]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    56/824 (page 36)
    Mr. W. E. your plan to find sufficient work for aD men who may Skivinrjloti. apply ?—I am not concerned whether it is possible or — not. It is a thing that is necessary to be done by someone, 15 Jan. 1907. and the distress committees in commencing to deal with this great problem are the best at the present time. If we can extend the powers, and if they learn by experience how to handle a large number of persons, all the better. demand for the aged people at the present time, but I do The minmum living income for the aged. not think it is sufficient. 36385. You know the working-classes in Manchester State provi- aion against sickness and unemploy- ment and its effect on Trade Unions, etc. The motives of refusal to give out- relief. The mini- mum living income for the aged. 36371. You would make it possible for all men to apply for work and you would make it imperative on the part of the authorities to provide those men with work and wages ?—Certainly. 36372. What effect would that have on men at the present time who do to a certain extent insure against unemployment by joining various trade unions, friendly societies, and so on in order to provide an income when work is scarce ? Would the men continue to join those trade unions and insure against unemployment if there was work ready for them without ?—They only join the trade unions and combine in the trade unions on account of the fear of unemployment. 36373. If you take that fear away by providing constant work from a public authority which they can always fly to, there would be no necessity to join the trade unions ?— No. 36374. You do not think they are necessary in that respect ?—No. 36375. You would let the State take the whole res- ponsibiUty for all exigencies of life, for sickness and for ■unemployment I mean ?—-I will say Yes, for sickness and unemployment. 36376. You would make unemplojrment and sickness a State charge as it were ?—-Yes. 36377. Therefore no one need in the future prepare for either of those two contingencies ?—No. 36378. {Miss Hill.) You spoke about a difference of opinion sometimes occurring on the relief committees with regard to whether it was wise or un\vise to oiier the house, and you said some guardians were in favour of economy ?—Yes. 36379. I suppose you realise that it would not be only a question of economy with a good many peojle ; that they really do think that men as a rule can better provide for their own families than any State can do it, and that we must be very careful not to interfere with that sense of responsibility and duty and the affection which comes from the fulfilment of it; it is not by any means only a question of economy that is in the minds of those people ; they may be right or wrong, but it is a different view of things : you realise that, do you not ?—Not as you put it. 36380. You do not think there are people who really beHeve that we will, say, lavish outdoor rehef, or extensive outdoor relief, has really supplemented wages and there- fore lowered them ?—I say these people do not .under- stand the real position of the persons they are dealing with. 36381. That may be so, but their motive is not economy? —Yes it is, they must be careful of the rates. 36382. I do know about individuals, but surely you recognise that some are instigated by other motives than those of economy ?—They care about the poor ratepayer instead of the poor people the rates are levied for. I might say in answer to that if you are speaking of persons who are imemploj^ed, compulsorily imemployed, all the persons that there is work for are employed, and there is a surplus, they are in different grades, and unless society offers work to these people they must fuid maintenance for them and not niggardly maintenance even at that. 36383. I was not speaking about a particular policy which it might be wise to adopt, but I was sajdng that there are people who see these other reasons for throwing people to a certain extent on their own resources and for taking care they do not paralyse their energies?—Throwing them on their own resources in that manner means that if they do get up one fine morning and bestir themselves very actively and get a shop they get someone else's job and there is no change; you have another person out of wo. k instead of that one. 36384. {Mr. Phelps.) When you said you thought 5s. was the point to which you would work up for relief per head, had you any particular reason for taking 5s. ?— Only that I think that is as much as I can attempt to I gather ?—Very well indeed. 36386. What do you think is the sum that a person can live upon, take a single couple, a man and his wife, under conditions which are tolerable from your point of view ?— To be comfortable ? 36387. Under conditions which are tolerable ?—Work- less or aged ? 36388. Aged ?—I do not think they could live at all comfortably on less than 10s. each. 36389. A married couple ?—Yes, comfortably. 36390. What would you put their rent at ?—5s. to maintain the house which they had in their yoimger days I will say. 36391. What I meant was that they should be lodged suitably according to one's notions ?—I do not see why their home should be broken up after a life of toil, say forty or forty-five years' working. I do not see why we should take into consideration putting them ia rooms. In speaking of adequate means, I do not believe in the 5s. pensions at all; if there is any justification for a pension let it be an adequate pension. 36392. You only took 5s. as the maximum that you hoped ?—Not the maximum. 36393. The maximum that you. hoped your board might be induced to give ?—I should like to see that 5s. attained, because it might be a starting place to get more. 36394. Quite so; on the whole you think that £1 a week The relation for an aged couple is about what the State ought to give in of relief the way of assistance ?—Yes. and old-age 36395. With regard to the conditions under which people hoMing^con- live, are you prepared to be stern on that point if you find ditions. people living in surroundings M'hich are not tolerable ?— I should like to improve the surroundings, certainl}'. 36396. How would yon secure that people should live in surroundings which were good ?—If we did give 10.?. pensions to aged people we could stipulate that they should not resides^ in the slums, because it wotdd be something reasonable to live upon. 36397. That is to say that you would say they should break up the home ?—I should stipulate that they would live in the suburbs and get the fresh air ; it would prolong their lives and they would get the pensions longer. 36398. You would break up their homes if it was for their benefit ?—It would be desirable for them not to live in the slums. 36399. You would not consult their wishes on that poiat ?—Under certain circumstances I might do ; in the poorer districts, which I have in mind, certainly there are conditions that it is very desirable to get away from if you can. I have not managed yet to get away from them, but I can see it is quite possible for another person's good to insist that they shall leave those conditions. 36400. Take another point, with regard to medical Question of relief you said you would be guided by the doctor practi- compulsory cally whether persons would be best treated in their own removal of homes or an institution ?—In an infirmary, yes. phthisis _ cases to m- 36401. I dare say you have come across cases of phthisis firmary. where doctors urge very strongly the removal of the patient ?■—Yes. 36402. Would you be prepared to effect that removal by force ?—No, I could not commit myself to that at present, although I recognise the force of it. 36403. You would not lay it down as a general rule that the doctor's advice should always be taken ?—I may be ■RTong on that point, but I should try to persuade them perhaps. Take the father of a family, although it is for his o^vn good it means he has to be taken away compul- sorily altogether from his family. 36404. I am not thinking of his own good, but the good of his children ?—That is the point I am looking at it from. 36405. You would be prepared to see them affected by phthisis 7—No, I would not. 36406. I only ask what coui'se you would adopt in those cases. However, I do not want to press it. It is very difficult, I quite agree ?—I know the reason, and seethe f I !