17 
The charge of bureaucracy had been made. What did 
it consist of? The bureaucracy that was being complained of 
was that it was proposed to extend the service of school 
doctors, nurses, sanitary visitors, and inspectors, acting under 
the direct order and control of their democratically elected 
council. He did not know how much nearer they could get 
to democracy than that. The same reasons that he had stated 
in regard to Education Authorities applied equally to the 
Health Authorities, Lunacy Committees, and the authorities 
for dealing with the aged. 
The methods suggested in the resolution were the first 
steps to be taken, and when once they made a start, they 
would, in time, be able to bring about practically the entire 
abolition of poverty. 
F. J. Pearce (Hampstead Trades Council) seconded- 
H. Quelch moved an amendment to the resolution, the 
main point in which was to provide that the relief of distress 
should be carried out “under the supervision of a directly 
elected local authority.” 
He largely agreed with the terms of the resolution, 
but thought that the modification proposed was necessary. 
Lansbury had said that Trades Unionists and Socialists ought 
to be ashamed of themselves for not having done more in the 
way of agitation against the administration of the Poor Law. 
He absolutely repudiated any blame attaching to his organisa 
tion (S.D.P.) in this connection. Twenty-seven years ago 
they formulated proposals for the amelioration of the Poor 
Law, and over and over again on their recommendation 
circulars were issued by the Local Government Board in the 
direction of better treatment of the unemployed. He would 
like to know just what lay behind “The Break-up of the Poor 
Law.” It was proposed to abolish Boards of Guardians which 
he claimed were susceptible to public opinion, and create 
authorities which would not be so susceptible to public opinion. 
When they had classified their poor and their destitute, and 
had handed one set to the Health Committee and another to 
the Education Committee, they would not have abolished 
destitution, and they would still want an authority to whom 
people could go and say they were in need of public assistance. 
He did not think that Boards of Guardians had performed 
their duties half as badly as the London County Council 
Education Committee. 
E. C. Fairfield seconded the amendment. 
Sidney Webb, opposing the amendment, expressed great 
surprise at the attitude of Mr. Quelch and his friends. Boards 
of Guardians up and down the country were now sheltering 
themselves behind the Social Democratic Party who, for once, 
were to be found fighting for Bumble. He himself would not