The C.O.S.

and its Place in History: A Review Article

Author(s): C. Woodard
Source: Social Work (1939-1970), Vol. 18, No. 4, PAST AND PRESENT CONCEPTIONS OF A
CASEWORK SERVICE (OCTOBER 1961), pp. 12-16
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43760592
Accessed: 23-11-2022 13:58 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Social Work (1939-1970)

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The C.O.S. and its Place in History
A Review Article *

C. Woodard

In 1914 Helen Bosanquet published "Socialefficient no doubt in its clumsy way, but as
Work in London: A History of the Londonone of the framers of the Poor Law had said,
Charity Organisation Society." "Thoughit was meant to be a skeleton, the flesh of
authorised," she wrote, "the history is notwhich would be provided by voluntary
official." 1 It was, in fact, as much a restate-
charity. The labours of the Charity Organi-
ment and vindication of COS principles by onesation Society were needed to keep the whole
who had long been closely associated with the crazy machine on the rails, but there was no
COS as it was a history. And at the time of chance that it's journey would ever be com-
its publication, those principles were highly pleted! Nobody tries to disinter the history
controversial if not down right unpopular.of charities, of Charity, nowadays. It is as
Consequently Mrs. Bosanqueťs book - and, for well not to do so."3
that matter, any book on that subject - was not
calculated to attract widespread, sympathetic
Notwithstanding this trend, there has been in
attention. As a reviewer in the "New States-
recent years a slight shift in topics of historical
man" put it, after describing the political views interest. Once again charity and other non-
of the COS, "Fortunately it is no longer collectivist phenomena are attracting the atten-
necessary to wage a direct attack upon thistion of historians. We may note the renewed
extraordinary philosophy. Mrs. Bosanquet her- interest in the Classical Political Economists,
self regretfully admits that 'the era of State aid'those champions of laissez faire who looked to
has come".2
private charity as the remedy for social evils
In the years following the publication of (Bentham, Malthus, Ricardo, Col. Torrens and
Mrs. Bosanqueťs book, historians followed the Nassau Senior have all found latter-day ad-
lead implicit in that review. That is, they mirers); the arch-Poor Law reformer, Sir
busied themselves uncovering the origins of the
Edwin Chadwick, has risen to an exalted posi-
"era of State aid". Meticulous scholars delved tion in 19th Century history; and the study of
into all aspects of Chartism, Trade Unionism, charity itself has received a tremendous boost
Socialism, Communism, Fabianism and every by Prof. W. K. Jordan's monumental analysis
other conceivable antecedent of collectivism. of the patterns of giving in the period 1480 to
1660 - a book that is likely to serve as a model
At the same they studiously ignored, or, in
passing, decried all subjects tainted with laissezfor similar studies of other periods. (In fact
Prof. David Owen of Harvard is now in the
faire as examples of past hypocrisy, greed and
stupidity. Consequently the COS, along withprocess of writing the history of English charity
the advocates of frugality banks and teetotalerfor the period 1660 to the present day; and a
pledges, moral regeneration and Poor Law re-team of scholars at the University of Wiscon-
form, faded into a twilight of contemptuoussin, reinforced by a $100,000 grant, are
oblivion. The attitude towards them is illu- systematically writing the history of American
strated by the following remark by Professorphilanthropy.)
H. L. Beales, in an article on the Poor Law.
It is in this context that Professor C. L.
"There was the great volume of out-relief,
the abolition of which had never been Mowat has published "The Charity Organisa-
tion Society, 1869-1913: Its Ideas and Work."
possible. That was repressively meagre,
The first such history since Mrs. Bosanqueťs,
it is
iç The Charity Organisation Society , 1869-1913 : welcomed. For, as R. C. K. Ensor
Its Ideas and Works . C. L. Mowat. Methuen 25s pointed out in a review of the earlier book:

12

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "Mrs. Bosanquets' history, though Plutarch, except that a record of mere failure
valuable, still leaves a place for a writer who would probably be found excessively depress-
should cover these aspects (of 'negative ing as well as uninstructive reading."^ And
individualism') judicially, and also tell us we must consider what there is to be gleaned
more about the personnel and machinery and from COS history, marked as it was by failure,
proposals of successive generations of the that could be either inspiring or instructive?
COS, instead of obliging us still to disinter
such matters from dusty back numbers of the Professor Mowat has avoided the question
Society's 'Reporter' and 'Reviewer'."4 in part by showing that the COS was not a
failure. Or at least not a total failure. He
And it may be fairly said that Professor Mowat
has met these objections. Though the grand- reminds us that it was in fact a conspicuous
son of Sir Charles Loch, the most influential success in fostering what we now call Social
(and uncompromising) single person in COS Work. As Young and Ashton have put it, "we
tend to date modern case work from its activi-
history, he is by no means a mere expounder
of COS policy, as was Mrs. Bosenquet. ties.'^ And Professor Mowat has gone into
Sympathetic, yes. But he is certainly not detail explaining why we should do so. Specifi-
doctrinaire. With admirable detachment he cally he has discussed the role of the COS in
treats the subject as an historical phenomenonintroducing the new salaried social worker into
to be analyzed and explained, rather than de- a field traditionally occupied by volunteers.
fended or comdemned. And he has described (Curiously, however, Florence Nightingale
the various aspects and activities of the COS - had, a few years earlier, brought about a great
who its leaders were, what they believed, and reform in nursing by displacing Sarah Gamp
how thew went about their chosen task of im- and her salaried sisters with zealous volun-

proving the condition of the lower classes - in teers.) Likewise he has shown how the COS
sufficient detail to answer most questions that leaders formulated a training programme,
are likely to arise at this late date. The limita- combining practical work in District Offices
tion of his study are largely self-imposed. As with lectures on theoretical subjects, for its
he put it: "I have been concerned with the members, and later paid employees - a pro-
COS, not with the history of charity or social gramme which, in time, ripened into our
thought in Victorian England ..." And, with modern schools of social work and university
curricula on social administration. 8 In this
this reservation, the book is a solid, if some-
what humdrum, contribution to the growing respect the COS could scarcely be considered
a failure.
shelf of histories of charity and other right-
wing (as we now call them) institutions.
No one can deny this and we surely need to
be reminded of it. But by emphasizing this
Success and Failure aspect of COS history, particularly at a time
characterised by a renewed interest in, and
But what, we may ask, is there in COSrediscovery of, conservative institutions, we
history that justifies our disinterring its dry may lose sight of an important fact, viz. the
bones today? Why should we bother ourselves COS did fail. And its success in laying the
with a society that advocated a programme thatfoundations of modern social work does not
not only never materialised but became posi-really attone for, or alter, the fact. Indeed it
tively odious? (The Cambridge branch of theemphasizes it. For the COS aspired to so much
COS changed its name in 1914 to disassociatemore. Certainly the great leaders of the COS -
itself with the evil connotation of the name. 5) Loch, Bernard Bosanquet, Lord Lichfield,
Old Samuel Smiles, who shared much in Octavia Hill, Lord Shaftesbury - would, if
common with the COS, raised the ultimate they came back today, be disappointed to learn
question that those who would resurrect the that we remember it just for that. And this is
COS must ponder. In his words: "Why should not because they would disapprove of modern
not Failure,' it has been asked, 'have its social work. Rather, it would be because they
Plutarch as well as Success?' There is, indeed dreamed bigger dreams and held higher hopes
no reason why Failure should not have its for their Society. The magnitude of their

13

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
dreams, and their failure, is measured by their by instilling in the lower classes the virtues of
foe, the notion of "Social Justice", better self-help, diligence, temperance, family re-
known today as the Welfare State. For they sponsibility, and thrift.
led an equivalent movement, "The Ideal of No one can deny that it accomplished much
Charity," which was every bit as ambitious and good in this endeavour. But history does not
comprehensive. And the question we would measure the COS by its success or failure in
consider is (to paraphrase Samuel Smiles this respect. Today we say it failed because it
again) whether we can gain instruction and in- concentrated on the wrong problem. That is,
spiration from this aspect of COS history. the COS persisted in holding moral pauperism
to be the decisive problem when it had ceased
The Dangers of Absolutism to be so.
While hoarsely shouting that the cracks in
I think we can. The lessons of instruction
the cup were decisive, others insisted that the
are really too numerous to deal with here. But slow trickle into the cup was more important.
we can attempt to elucidate one, viz. that the "The problem of poverty is changing its
manifestations of the "charitable urge" - thecharacter, "wrote Alfred Marshall, 10 one of
way we express concern for the unfortunatethose instrumental in bringing about the change
members of society - change to comport with in the form of the charitable urge that emascu-
the particular needs, and forms, of society; and lated the COS. "While the problem of 1834
it is very dangerous to hold, as the COS did,was pauperism," he continued, "the problem of
that a particular expression of that urge is 1893 is the problem of poverty ... "11 Hence
absolutely, inalterably and eternally the right the modern social reformers have concentrated
one. For the history of charity makes it per- on the factors that determine the flow of
fectly clear that social aspirations can and doeconomic wealth into the cups of the poor: such
change as society itself changes. And the COS, as the business cycle, the distribution of wealth,
which made its bid for national (and interna- the incidence of taxation. The cracks in the
tional) leadership during an extremely unstablecup are important, but not, as the COS
period, failed because its leaders were unablebelieved, all important. We worry more about
to see that the way they believed the charitable unemployment than indolence; and more about
urge should be expressed did not meet thosepropensity to consume than frugality. We seek
new needs. Consequently, novel manifestations salvation in structural changes rather than
of that urge - such as Syndicalism, Coopera-moral regeneration.
tion, Marxism, and the Single Tax - appeared;
and those which best met those needs - those As the COS refused to change, it was left
behind - on a shore littered with the skeletons
inherent in the Welfare Concept - won of other such movements which were unable to
general acceptance.
adjust to change. The analogy to the demise
The COS was based on the assumption that of the Other- World oriented Church building,
the great problem of the day was moral alms-giving Charity of the Middle Ages is
pauperism; and this conviction necessarily irresistable. When confronted by the economic
coloured its proposed remedies and activities. and social upheavals of the 14th and 15th
Its views were well summarised by a writer century the old forms of expressing the chari-
whom its members never tired of quoting: table urge were inadequate to meet new needs.
Hence it yielded to militantly secular "Philan-
"It is of the utmost importance accurately thropy" - the love of Man, by God! - which
to distinguish between poverty and pauper- hated the Old Church with the same passion
ism; for by confounding them poverty is that the Fabians reserved for the COS. As
dishonoured and pauperism countenanced. Professor Jordan put it:
Poverty is a sound vessel empty, but pauper- "It was a revolution in which men's
ism is not only empty but cracked."9
aspirations for their own generation and
To pursue the metaphor, the crack in the those to come had undergone an almost
cup was more important than its content (or complete metamorphosis, as the essentially
the lack thereof). Thus with admirable logic religious interests of the later Middle Ages
the COS did all it could to mend the crack - yielded to social aspirations which were most

14

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 aggressively secular and which wrested from Personal concern for the poor was essential
the church the control and the direction of to the COS and its way of thinking. And its
the institutions which lend care to men's "Ideal of Charity" was based on the belief that
bodies and tuition to their minds." 12 this personal element could be aroused, stimu-
Our lesson from the failure of the COS,lated and fostered enough to solve the problems
then, is this: the needs of society change; andfacing society. And it naturally preferred this
the way we undertake to assist the unfortunate method to State action, with its impersonal and
must comport with those changes. The penalty virtue-less compulsions. Thus the COS re-
garded all legislation to be a compromise: an
of not doing so is to be by-passed and forgotten.
Those who are absolutists in their outlook - as admission that man did not possess the neces-
for example those who assume that State-aid sary moral fibre to solve the problem of his own
is the final solution to the Poverty problem - free will, through improvement of moral
may well be courting the fate of their old foes, character on the part of the poor and the exer-
the COS. cise of true charity, or love of God, on the part
of the rich.
Such, then, is one bit of instruction we can
glean from the history of the COS. Can we Perhaps it was naive to hold that private
find any inspiration in its failure? Yes. But toindividuals, however much inspired by love and
appreciate it one must be convinced of thefriendship, could mend the broken threads of
purity of the motives of the COS and its society. At worse, however, the COS was guilty
members. Anyone who is at all interested inof preaching a message that was too good for
the COS must have been struck by the curiousthis world: that love, brotherly love, conquers
paradox of these great friends of the poor beingall. And in this sense the failure of Loch's
recalcitrant opponents of social justice meas-"Practical Idealism" was like that of Christ: a
ures. Many, perhaps most, readers are human tragedy which reveals the best in man.
satisfied to resolve this paradox by denying So it was that the COS was a true inspiration
that the COS was a friend of the poor. - splendid in its failure.
It is much easier to brand it, and its
members self-righteous prigs and hypocrites.
FOOTNOTES
But a closer look at its history will, I am con-
vinced, quail this conclusion. Certainly any-
1. p. vi.
one who reads (for example) the work of that
2. 13 June 1914.
splendid couple, Bernard and Helen Bosanquet
- the Webbs of the Right - will be struck by 3. "The Passing of the Poor Law" "Political
Quarterly" (1948), vol. xix, p. 321
the strength of their conviction and the purity
of their motives. Familiarity, in other words, 4. "Manchester Guardian," 15 June 1914.
makes the paradox more, not less, puzzling. 5. This information was taken from a talk by
Mrs. C. D. Rackham entitled "Some Recoll-
ections of the Society Since 1903", given at
Personal Concern
the Annual Meeting of the Cambridge Cen-
One reason is that these philanthropists were tral Aid Society in 1958. Actually the Cam-
bridge COS first changed its title to the
far more concerned, personally, about the plight Cambridge Central Aid and Charity Orga-
of the poor than we, the citizens of the Welfare nisation Society in 1915; and it was not
State, are today. They voluntarily gave of their until 1920 that it dropped the latter part of
money, their time, and themselves to work the title. We might add that as early as 1901
a sermon, delivered from the University pul-
amongst their less fortunate fellow-men; we pit, denounced COS principles in such
make involuntary contributions, in the form of derogatory terms that the local branch was
taxation, to expert-manned State agencies. moved, in its annual report, to "accept this
Who is the better friend of the poor? From the opportunity of disclaiming it." "(22nd
Annual Report, p. 4)."
point of view of the recipient I suppose we, the
6. "Self Help," 1866, p. iv.
taxpayers, are. But from our point of view -
7. "British Social Work in the Nineteenth
we can only say that we submitted to the com-
Century," 1956, p. 102.
pulsion of the law. And there is not much
8. It should be noted, however, that the COS
warmth, or friendship or brotherly love was a failure in its attempt to establish an
involved. institution to teach social workers its own

15

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 individualistic, anti - State assistance
approach to social work. As Professor
Mowat points out the School of Sociology
was opened in 1903 and continued to operate
as an adjunct of the COS until 1912 when mermes
it was swallowed up by the Webb dominated
London School of Economics. Nothing could
be more indicative, and symbolic, of the fate
of the COS. And the leaders of the COS
The London Group of the A.G.F.C.W.
are holding two meetings which may be
were fully aware of this. As Bernard Bosan-
quet put it:
of interest to some who are not members
"... that confounded School of Econo-
mics has mopped up our little school of of the A.G.F.C.W.
Sociology in London. We - that is really
the COS - invented and started the thing,
and have made it popular and efficient
(of course it doesn't hoist the COS flag)
for nine or ten years, but we have no MONDAY, 30th OCTOBER
money, and the School of Economics,
which is rich, comes along and says 'we
are going to compete, or will you 'cooper- Mrs. Castillo, M.S.S.
ate'? They could undersell us to any
extent, and if they started without us we (Smith College for Social Work)
couldn't have come in later, and their will speak on
staff would be made up. So we have
made the best terms we could, and are
putting up the shutters with a heavy
heart." (Mss. letter to R.C. Bosanquet "EGO PSYCHOLOGY AND
dated 1 August, 1912. This letter is re- CASEWORK PRACTICE''
produced in part in H. Bosanquet, "Ber-
nard Bosanquet: A Short Account of His
Life," 1924, p. 55.)
Bosanquet also pointed out that "the ★
thorny point will be the training at the
COS offices, which is the point of special
excellence in our schools, and which it
will be hard to maintain in the atmos-
phere by the new school" MONDAY, 20th NOVEMBER
It is somewhat ironical that this should have
been the origin of the chair of Social Ad-
ministration at the London School of Eco- Dr. H. R. Beech,
nomics, now occupied by Professor Titmuss,
who differs so greatly with the COS Psychologist, Institute of Psychiatry,
philosophy. Maudsley Hospital,
9. Thomas Walker, "The Original," 4th ed. will speak on
1839, p. 189. A new edition of this book
was reissued by a prominent member of the
COS, Dr. W. A. Guy, in 1875. "BEHAVOURIST THEORY AND
10. J. M. Keynes, ed. "Official Papers of Alfred CASEWORK PRACTICE"
Marshall," 1925, p. 99.
11. "Ibid," pp. 244-245.
12. "Philanthropy in England; 1480 to 1660,"
by Prof. W. K. Jordan, 1959, p. 240. At 5.30 p.m. in the Committee Room at
Another example of such a shift in social
aspirations is indicated by the following Denison House, 296, Vauxhall Bridge Rd.,
comment by a Victorian compiler of S.W.I.
charities.
"As the establishment of almshouses and
other asylums has been more peculiarly
the work of other a past age, so are the
numerous Pension and Benefit Funds the
Admittance: 2s. 6d. per meeting.
production of our own ..." (Sampson
Low, Jr., "The Charities of London, 1850
ed., p. 235).

16

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.150 on Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms