Booth then decided to research the whole of London over the next 12 years. Between 1889 and 1901, he published his findings in 17 volumes entitled Life and Labour of the People of London, Booth discovered the same levels of poverty throughout the whole of London. He also found that only 3% out of the 30% were being helped by the Poor Law. He then argued that poverty was such a major problem that only the government could really help and if nothing was done to improve the lives of the poor, Britain was in danger of a socialist revolution.
Booth’s work was important for a number of reasons. His method of working was important. He used scientific methods and put people into recognizable social classes. He worked out a poverty line (A level of income that was needed in order for a family to stay just beyond a life of starvation).below which people could not live. He provided statistics which proved the extent of poverty in London. He proved the scale of the poverty uncovered could not be met by charitable aid alone. As a result of his work other people began to wonder if conditions in London were unique.
Booth’s findings were supported by another social investigator called Seebohm Rowntree. Rowntree was a member of a wealthy York chocolate manufacturing family. Inspired by the work of Booth in London, Rowntree a committed Christian, decided to see if London’s level of poverty only applied to that city or if similar levels existed across Britain.
In his research, Rowntree was very careful in his definition of poverty. He drew up a poverty line which was the least amount of money a family could live on. He found some 20,000 people living below this line. All the Victorian remedies such as thrift (careful management of money) were no use to these people. You could not be expected to save money when you did not have enough for the basic essentials.
He also defined poverty as primary or secondary. In primary poverty a family lacked the basic resources to buy even the basic necessities. In secondary poverty, the family had enough to stay above the poverty line but “wasted” resources in treats and escapism, such as drink of gambling. However, this need to escape could frequently be blamed on poverty itself. Rowntree also argued that poverty was not a constant. People fell into poverty at different stages of their lives, especially in old age. Rowntree also put a figure on the minimum amount of money that a family needed to live.
After two years of research, in 1901, Rowntree published his findings Poverty, a study of Town Life, which showed similar levels of poverty (30%) in York as in London. He also found that in York wages were so low that even men in full time employment were forced to live close to starvation level. He recommended that a minimum wage of 1.08 pounds a week was needed to keep a couple with three children in “Spartan physical efficiency”. If York, a relatively small, “typical” English city had such problems then so would other British cities, and therefore the problem of poverty was a national problem.
These investigations found that poverty was not always the fault of the individual and exploded the Victorian myth that poverty was the result of a character defect. Many of the elderly, the ill and those without work lived poor lives. However, many workers were paid such low wages, or were not paid regularly due to irregular work, that they could not afford life’s basic needs. The poverty of such people was not their fault.
Neither Booth nor Rowntree were professional researchers but they changed the way poverty was studied.
They were very important men. Historians agree.
From JR Hay, The Origins of the Liberal Reforms.
The social surveys did tend to undermine the view that personal character deficiencies were the primary cause of poverty.
From D Fraser, The Evolution of the British Welfare State.
Booth and Rowntree gave to the growing public concern over poverty the statistical evidence on which to build the case for state aid.
These reports provided politicians with evidence that they could not ignore that no matter how hard people tried, they could not lift themselves out of poverty. By 1906, when the Liberals got into power it was impossible to escape the weight of evidence about poverty in Britain as these reports were widely read. Poverty was shown by the reports to have causes, the cures of which were beyond the individual efforts of the poor. The concept of the “deserving poor”, those who were poor through no fault of their own, took root and became an important theme running through the Liberal reforms.
Booth and Rowntree’s investigations into poverty discovered that poverty was not the fault of the individual, but due to several factors out with the individual’s control, such as:
Who was responsible for sorting out these problems?
The government was. However, neither the Conservative party of Liberal party of the day believed in state help. Yet, it became clear to many that something had to be done.
What political party implemented change and moved away from Laissez – Faire?
It was the Liberal party who surprisingly became the pioneers of social reform. In the 1906 election the Liberal Party won a landslide victory producing a House of Commons with a Government majority of 356. Historically their period in office, from the euphoric election victory in 1906, until the outbreak of War in 1914 has been characterised by their revolutionary social reforms and attempts to alleviate poverty for the masses. However, the Liberals did not come to power on the issue of social reform or poverty but on a variety of other issues such as ‘Chinese slavery.’
Tasks (Morr, Morr & Mon pp50 – 51) (Kerr pp 57 – 58)
- What did Booth mean by the poor? (Morr Morr & Mon p 50)
- Was the Poor law coping? (Morr Morr & Mon p 51)
- What were the minimum necessities Rowntree felt people needed? (Morr Morr & Mon p 51)
- Why did Booth start his research?
- Why did he do his research at the weekend and in the evening?
- How was his research different from previous ideas about poverty?
- What did Rowntree’s research add to Booth’s work?
- What similarities were there in the two reports?
- How did they differ?
- Would the politicians be happy about these reports?
- Copy the text at the top of the page and the diagram below it.
- For each of the main reasons for poverty write why you think they led to poverty.
