Final sentence from ‘Poverty’ – Rowntree is saying that structural change can make a difference to poverty and is desirable. He was not necessarily saying all this had to be action by the state. In 1901 there were increasing concerns that Britain was falling behind her competitors in the world and that action was needed to maintain her status as supreme world power. There was not a consensus on how this should be done. In 1901 the Liberal Party were beginning to recover from a long period out of office after a serious split over Ireland and the Conservative government was beginning to lose its grip on power. The Liberal Party would be more likely to take up Rowntree’s ideas.
Churchill on the Study - Churchill was a senior Liberal from 1904, when he crossed the floor of the House from the Conservative Party, and was increasingly concerned about National Efficiency, including reasons for Britain’s recruitment problems during the Boer War, when a large percentage of volunteers were turned away on health grounds. He does seem to have been moved by the plight of the poor and was also keen to adopt a middle way stance on social issues that appealed to the working classes, for fear they would turn to support the growing socialist movement, and which would help the Liberals win the next election. He was increasingly influenced by New Liberal ideas at this time. It is clear he is not a socialist because his last sentence shows he is most concerned with the ability of the individual to change their own lives.
‘The Life of the Labourer’ – Rowntree’s view that individuals should be able to reach their full potential is implicit here. He is appalled that the struggle to exist is squashing out these labourers ability to develop as human beings and lead a fulfilled life.
p5 ‘Poverty’ - Rowntree’s judgemental tone is typical of his time. There was a very strict division between the classes in Britain in the early years of the 20th century. He clearly believes individuals should be responsible and work hard to help themselves. However, his footnote makes it clear that he is prepared to believe that not all poor people are feckless. In this, he stood out all too clearly from the still prevailing view in 1900 that the poor were to blame for their own poverty.
p33-4 ‘Poverty’ – Although a snapshot of a few people, at one time, in part of a small city, this empirical data is useful to a historian and it demonstrates the dreadful poverty some people lived in around 1900. Notice the reference to lack of water in the home and shared toilets. The man who “chucked his job” would not have been regarded as ‘deserving’ poor. The workhouses were places for the very poor. Set up following the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, they were intended to provide shelter for the destitute, but to be sufficiently harsh that only the desperate would seek admittance. Vilified in Dickens, they required ‘inmates’ to wear simple uniforms, undertake drudgery for work and divided families upon arrival. They were overseen by ‘Poor Law Guardians’ and funded by local rate payers.
p47 ‘Poverty’ – this has become known as the ‘poverty cycle’ and is frequently reproduced as a graph. A person would typically be born into this level of poverty, rise out of it when they began work, fall back into it when they had children, rise out of it when children grew up, only to fall back in old age.
p78 ‘Poverty’ – Rowntree was ahead of his time in considering women as individuals needing fulfilment. It may be his Quaker roots which influenced this outlook; Quaker women were educated and regarded as equally important to men. Other progressives of the time viewed women as the rock of successful families and social policy from 1906-today is full of examples where this is recognised. Women now have more opportunities in education, technological advances have removed some of the drudge from house work and given women more control over their reproductive life, rising overall levels of wealth have resulted in more material goods in the home etc. However, women in 21st century Britain still do the majority of domestic work and for women from lower-income groups, there are still huge problems related to juggling work and care for sick children, accessing affordable child-care etc.
p86 ‘Poverty’ – it would be perfectly possible to be very poor, but not be in primary poverty because one could afford enough basic food, fuel, clothing, soap and shelter to stay healthy. Rowntree even calculated the basic calories and food variety for adults and children that would be above his ‘primary’ poverty line. However, useful expenditure might include: a book, a trip to see relatives, medicine for a sick person, etc. It is clear that life would be unacceptable to most people in the early 21st century even in Rowntree’s secondary poverty grouping.
p120 ‘Poverty’ – Rowntree’s big message is that the poor are not at fault for being in ‘primary’ poverty. We might think that family size was a matter of choice, but this is debatable in a period with low female education, low health education, a lack of readily available effective contraception and a lack of pensions, meaning that children were viewed as the supporters of a person’s old age. Infant mortality was still high and families could expect to lose some children. Rowntree goes on to make clear that low wages account for over 50% of the people identified as in ‘primary’ poverty.
p134 ‘Poverty’ – Rowntree’s detailed evidence and clear calculations to arrive at this very strict definition of dreadful poverty were very hard to argue against. He had provided evidence that most of the very poor were not just poor because they were feckless. These people would eat bread, butter and tea for two of their three daily meals. The main meal (at lunchtime) would be cheap meat and bread or potatoes, sometimes with cabbage.
Overcrowding in York homes – lack of privacy, difficulty in keeping clean and tidy, lack of ventilation and light, increased risk of damp etc.
Average heights - the non-working class boy is significantly taller and heavier. This substantiates Rowntree’s claims that poverty limited life and health. These children could not be blamed for their situation and were clearly being disadvantaged due to their social and economic status in society.
Evening Standard – these incomes would fall within the definition of primary poverty, although some of the expenditure e.g. the clothing club, would be regarded as useful but not essential.
Lady Hewley – would probably have regarded Seebohm Rowntree’s view of poverty to be not sufficiently moralistic. We read his work today and hear the judgement of people’s untidy homes and liking for drink. To people of the time, the linking of welfare, morality and piety was perfectly natural. Lady Hewley represented the mainstream of British upper class opinion on such issues, although the debates about National Efficiency and works such as Rowntree’s study were shifting some attitudes.
Clearance order – the Liberal government of 1905-15 focused upon legislation to create pensions, national insurance, school meals etc. Britain emerged from the First World War in 1918 in straightened financial circumstances. Re-housing took time to plan and orders had to be passed. Most of the houses cleared were owned by private landlords and people were re-housed into newly designed council houses on estates on the edge of the city, such as Tang Hall. These houses were of a better construction, allowed residents more space including outdoor areas and had inside toilets.
Walmgate – there are no cars, no kerbs, outside toilets on the left, less street furniture, no street lighting, telephone wires, electricity supply