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