In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Social Policy, Poverty, Poor Law and Charity ‘‘A Note on Pauperism’’ Nightingale’s paper on pauperism, published in Fraser’s Magazine , 1869, is her only publication on broad social policy. It is a remarkably progressive statement and indeed an early contribution to what would be termed ‘‘Christian socialism’’ in Britain and the ‘‘social gospel’’ in the United States and Canada. The paper includes the usual complaints about wasting money on poor relief and almsgiving and the evils of unions with positive examples of voluntary efforts to create jobs (through co-operatives). Much confidence is expressed in emigration as a solution. There is a clear statement of the underlying, Christian, foundation to what would become the welfare state: ‘‘The same tie unites us to God and all our fellow creatures .’’ Hence the abuse of the ‘‘imbecile old woman’’ and ‘‘dirty child’’ was no less than ‘‘treason’’ to God. ‘‘Love to God is synonymous with love to man’’ (see p 132 below). Work is accorded a key role, that is, paid work, again perhaps remarkable for a person who never had a paid job in her life. Work was not only the ‘‘first of our necessities’’ but ‘‘the strongest of our instincts’’ (see p 133 below). With an understanding of what would later be called human capital theory she affirmed that the ‘‘greatest harm’’ was the withdrawing of ‘‘all these heads and hands’’ from production (see p 134 below). Nightingale wrote the article shortly after the adoption of the Metropolitan Poor Bill, which facilitated the provision of professional nursing into workhouse infirmaries in London (reported in Public Health Care). Her memorandum on the ABCs of Poor Law reform, written in defence of her proposal, called for the removal of ‘‘all the sick (incapable) out of the workhouses and [to] provide for their cure or care’’ as a first step. The next step was ‘‘not to punish the hungry for / 129 being hungry’’ but to teach them to feed themselves (see p 132 below). The article then addressed pauperism not caused by ill health. As usual the most salient facts pertaining to the problem are set out: the large amount of money spent on relief for the destitute, while pauperism had doubled in the previous ten years; the existence of 100,000 homeless children on the streets of London, contrary to the provisions of the Poor Law. The Poor Law itself, of Elizabethan origin, had been designed for an agricultural age (see p 133 below). Its failure was an indictment of practical organization as well as a sign of failure to love God. She did not begrudge expenditure on the destitute, so long as it was put to good effect, or ‘‘the least harm of the overflowing workhouse is the burden on the rates’’ [municipal taxes] (see p 134 below). Nightingale’s tirade against unions was typical for her day. Their tyranny drove wages up, lost jobs to other countries and was thus against the interests of the workers themselves. She even acknowledged a ‘‘right to work,’’ or a right of workers to bargain, presumably individually, with their employer. Yet she recognized the seriousness of unemployment. Free trade had not succeeded in producing jobs (see p 143 below). Workers, moreover, not an argument often heard at the time, should be paid well. The Poor Law itself was a kind of ‘‘savage communism’’ to keep down wages. She noted the obvious convenience to employers of the existence of a ‘‘vast industrial army, ready for any work, and chargeable on the public when its work is not longer wanted.’’ The ‘‘reserve army of labour’’ of course is a Marxist term, but Nightingale was here citing an article in the Times (see p 141 below). She totally opposed the unproductive work required in workhouses. She recommended a ‘‘special commission’’ to investigate the unemployed poor (see p 404 below). The Poor Law reforms of the 1830s, on which Edwin Chadwick was the prime mover, forced the destitute into the workhouse to get relief by abolishing ‘‘outdoor relief,’’ or financial support provided outside the workhouse for the able-bodied. The workhouse ‘‘test’’ was the requirement to go into the workhouse to receive assistance, implying that unless one was willing to do this he or she was not really destitute. The work provided by the workhouse was overwhelmingly ‘‘unproductive ,’’ such as crushing stones in a stoneyard and picking oakum. In a draft memorandum on workhouse infirmary reform in 1865 Nightingale raised the question, short of outright recommending, the abolition...

Share