In a press report of Lady Mabel’s election onto Rotherham Rural District Council in April 1913, the phrase ‘consents’ to stand’ was used, suggesting that she was invited to do so. Representing Maltby, she was the first woman to be elected to the Council (women were eligible for election on district councils from 1894 but not on County or Borough Councils until 1907). On rural district councils, being a councillor meant also being a Poor Law Guardian and in this part of the work, Lady Mabel joined several other women.

The duties and responsibilities of a Guardian dealing with the administering of relief to the poor were numerous and a conscientious Guardian could not do the job properly without learning a considerable amount about the lives of people living in permanent or temporary poverty.  The Poor Law Relief Committee (of which Lady Mabel became a member) assessed individual applications to the Board for relief, deciding on whether money would be granted to individuals or families for a designated period. This ‘outdoor relief’ was given to allow applicants to remain in their homes rather than live in the workhouse (indoor relief’). The workhouse was regarded by people as the last resort, particularly for those with families. Not only was it was degrading to lose home, possessions and independence but, once back out of the workhouse, it was very hard to start again, from scratch.  Relief cases were assessed individually and the amounts given out depended on the (perceived) needs of those applying. The cases were re-examined after a period of weeks and relief might be continued, increased or stopped. Sometimes warrants were sought to prosecute men who were believed to have deserted their wives and families, leaving them entirely dependent on Poor Law assistance.

There can be no doubt that the presence of women on Boards of Guardians – from the 1870s but in greater number from the 1890s when property qualifications necessary for election were lowered – had a significant impact on Poor Law administration. Arguably the women best placed to serve were working class women who more easily understood the challenges facing families in poverty and the practical necessities that could make the biggest difference to their lives. This included small comforts in the workhouse that had too often been ignored in the interests of economy. This was of course not always achieved; since their inception in 1834, there had been too many incidences of cruelty and injustice in the administration of the Poor Laws, increasing the deep-rooted fear of the workhouse in communities as a judgement and punishment. Unsympathetic treatment was often the result of ignorance and assumptions made by middle class Guardians who showed too little willingness to put aside their prejudices about the causes of poverty. But, as my earlier mention of the Poor Law Minority Report shows, attitudes were, by the end of the 19^th century, slowly beginning to change as social reformers, such as Charles Booth and Beatrice Webb, sought to show that long established beliefs of the ‘undeserving poor’ were baseless in truth and ignored the realities faced by working class families living in poverty.

The roles of a Guardian were numerous. In addition to the assessment of relief, the Poor Law Guardians were responsible for looking after the welfare of the workhouse inmates. This meant monitoring the buying of food, fuel and clothing and dealing with the maintenance of the buildings.  They oversaw the appointment of staff for both the workhouse and its infirmary; the Hospital Committee worked closely with the Medical Officer to make sure that those in ill health received the correct care and that nursing staff were adequately trained.

By 1913, when Lady Mabel was elected, many Poor Law Boards recognized how unsuitable it was for children to spend long periods of time in the workhouse. In 1913, Rotherham, like many other Unions, sought instead to place children either in small ‘scattered’ homes under the care of an appointed house mother or married couple, or to find foster parents so that children could be ‘boarded out’. Here, their lives were closely scrutinised; children whose behaviour was deemed unacceptable could be sent back to the workhouse. The Guardians sought suitable employment or training for those of school leaving age. For girls going into service, the Children’s Homes Committee recommended to the Guardians that they should be equipped with suitable and useful clothing, including dresses, nightdresses, under garments, boots, aprons and a trunk for belongings. 

So where did Lady Mabel sit within this? On the one hand, as I have noted, she was well-known as a member of the Fitzwilliam family and the continued use of her title ensured that this could not be forgotten (and indeed suggested that she did not want it to be forgotten). As a Guardian, the newspapers noted that she was working in the tradition of her grandfather, who had been Chairman of the Rotherham Guardians. This was a link, certainly, but there was one very important distinction. The Earl’s position was an honorary one only; he (followed by his grandson, the 7^th Earl) were certainly not expected or required to be ‘hands on’ in any way.

Her grandfather had issued invitations to the Rotherham workhouse inmates to come to tea at Wentworth Woodhouse, a tradition continued by the 7^th Earl; in 1908 a ‘splendid tea’ was given in the Riding School, followed by a performance from the Elsecar Prize Brass Band in the pleasure gardens.  Perhaps witnessing such patronage did encourage Lady Mabel to establish her own such traditions. A keen gardener, she donated plants to the workhouse. She provided ‘entertainment and a lecture’ to the children in the scattered homes. By the 1920s, now living at Barnes Hall near Sheffield, and an elected member of the Wortley Rural District Council and its Poor Law Board, she provided tea at her home for the inmates of Grenoside Workhouse and for boarded out children. In 1923 there were sports and prizes presented by Lady Mabel as well as gifts of tobacco and cigarettes to the men and sweets, chocolate and ice cream for the women and children. One Christmas, she and her husband went to the Poor Law Infirmary with supplies of cake, apples, oranges, sweets, tobacco, Christmas crackers, toys and trinkets. On another occasion, Lady Mabel gave a lantern lecture in the workhouse about her father’s adventurous journey across the Rockies in search of a north-west land passage.

If this had been the extent of Lady Mabel’s role on the Board(s), it is quite likely that no one would have questioned it. Such benevolence was expected from the aristocracy. But Lady Mabel did not limit her role to patronage. She appears to have been a diligent and thoughtful member and a high level of involvement from her was anticipated in the district on her election. Even allowing for a certain amount of obsequiousness, it is striking that a local newspaper noted in 1913 how ‘refreshing’ it was to see members of the landed and leisured classes taking an interest in democratic movements. Perhaps, however, the article notes, ‘we do Lady Mabel Smith an injustice in including her among the leisured classes for she is probably one of the most strenuous social workers in South Yorkshire’, citing her involvement with the WEA and describing her as being ‘thoroughly democratic in aims and sympathies’. She had ‘done a great deal for working-class movements in the district and her election to Rotherham Rural District Council gives her the opportunity of doing a great deal more’. Although being a member of the Fitzwilliam family certainly ensured her local respect and admiration, I do wonder if her marriage to someone outside the nobility also gave her a very useful degree of independence that helped her in her work as a councillor and a Guardian.

Lady Mabel’s attendances at Poor Law Committee meetings compared well with those of her colleagues; in the year 1914-5, for example, she was at 24 of 26 Board meetings, 11 of 14 meetings of the Children’s Home Committees, 12 of 14 of the Hospital Committee’s and 23 of 26 of the Relief Committee’s. There can be little doubt that such close attention to the many issues dealt with by the committees – children’s education while in the care of the Board, maternity welfare in the workhouse, finding suitable foster parents, employing efficient medical staff, helping young people into training and employment, to name but a few – must have given Lady Mabel valuable insights into the lives of a class very different to her own. According to a discussion held at Mexborough Trades Council in May 1914, the Rotherham Board of Guardians gave more relief to the poor than any other Board in the country, with amounts up to one pound in cases where there were three or four children to be cared for within a family. For this, the Board had apparently been fined for overspending but had refused to pay the fine (surcharge) imposed. At this Trades Council meeting, there was a debate on a resolution calling on the government to provide pensions for widows with families (a measure that did not become law until 1925) and it was noted that Lady Mabel Smith had supported a similar resolution passed at the last meeting of the Rotherham Board of Guardians. This was of course a matter of great relevance to the Poor Law on whose assistance the widows of working-class men often depended. In the next blog in this series, I will talk about Lady Mabel’s ‘conversion’ to socialism but for now, it is interesting and possibly significant that her support for a resolution about social welfare is brought up at a meeting of trade union delegates, possibly indicating that she has already become known in her community as a supporter of the working classes. This may have been though her work with the WEA or she may already have become a Labour Party member. This too will be discussed in the next post.

For images and detail about Rotherham Workhouse I recommend the extensive research of Peter Higginbotham which can be found on his website The Workhouse: the story of an Institution and particularly relevant to this post is The Workhouse in Rotherham, Yorkshire, W. Riding

At some point just before or during the First World War, the Smiths (as I mentioned earlier) moved to Barnes Hall near Sheffield (which had been the Smith family ‘seat’ for many years) in the Ecclesfield Division of the West Riding (now part of Sheffield).

The move signified a geographical shift for much of Lady Mabel’s work; in 1918, she resigned her seat on Rotherham Rural District Council but was, as mentioned, elected to the Wortley Rural District Council and Board of Guardians in 1922, representing Ecclesfield. The biggest political shift, however, came in March 1919, when Lady Mabel Smith became the first woman to be elected to the West Riding County Council and she did so as a Labour member.