Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:18:56.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Charity-Mongers of Modern Babylon: Bureaucracy, Scandal, and the Transformation of the Philanthropic Marketplace, c.1870–1912

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2015

Sarah Roddy ,
Julie-Marie Strange  and
Bertrand Taithe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay sheds new light on the supposedly familiar world of Victorian philanthropy by considering charity in relation to market regulation. Focusing on the “charity fraud,” we suggest that in the shaping of this exclusive and paradoxical marketplace, charities eagerly seized fraud denunciations to advertise and authenticate their legitimacy. This reflected the massive changes in the charitable world since the days of paternalist social relations and, paradoxically, illustrates the extremity of the problem facing the donating public: if one could not be entirely certain of a local charity, how could he or she discern between the national organizations that undertook fund-raising for international disasters? This contest for legitimacy and the exposure of fraud shaped a contested but oddly virtuous exchange market: by the turn of the twentieth century, charities not only published account sheets but debated them publicly, too.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 118 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © The North American Conference on British Studies 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Harrison, Brian, “Philanthropy and the Victorians,” Victorian Studies 9, no. 4 (1966): 353–74Google Scholar and Owen, David, English Philanthropy, 1660–1960 (Cambridge, MA, 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kidd, Alan J., “Philanthropy and the ‘Social History Paradigm,’” Social History 21, no. 2 (1996): 180–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, F. M. L., The Rise of Respectable Society: A Social History of Victorian Britain 1830–1900 (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Daunton, Martin, “The Future Direction of British History: Thinking about Economic Cultures,” History Workshop Journal 72, no. 1 (2011): 222–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The ideal of organized charity remained a Utopian one. Himmelfarb, Gertrude, “Bentham's Utopia: The National Charity Company,” Journal of British Studies 10, no. 1 (1970): 80–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 This article does not address the “scientific” revolution in charity or the respective importance of Guilds or other forms of charitable organizations that have a long-established historiography. Mowat, Charles Loch, “Charity and Casework in Late Victorian London: The Work of the Charity Organisation Society,” Social Service Review 31, no. 3 (1957): 258–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, Michael J., “Social Work and Social Welfare: The Organization of Philanthropic Resources in Britain, 1900–1914,” Journal of British Studies 16, no. 2 (1977): 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See for example, Prochaska, Frank, The Voluntary Impulse: Philanthropy in Modern Britain (London, 1998)Google Scholar and Christianity and Social Service in Modern Britain: The Disinherited Spirit (Oxford, 2006)Google Scholar; Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Poverty and Compassion: The Moral Imagination of the Late Victorians (New York, 1991)Google Scholar.

5 See for example, Hilton, Matthew and McKay, James, eds., The Ages of Voluntarism: How We Got to the Big Society (Oxford, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Crowson, Nick, Hilton, Matthew, and McKay, James, eds., NGOs in Contemporary Britain: Non-State Actors in Society and Politics since 1945 (Basingstoke, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Mandler, Peter, ed., The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daunton, Martin, ed., Charity, Self-Interest and Welfare in the English Past (London, 1996)Google Scholar.

7 The morality of consumption and market regulation more broadly has been addressed. See, in particular, Craig, David, John Ruskin and the Ethics of Consumption (Charlottesville, VA, 2006)Google Scholar and Busch, Lawrence, “The moral economy of grades and standards,” Journal of Rural Studies 13, no. 2 (2000): 273–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With regard to charity, anthropologists have recently appropriated E. P. Thompson's model of “moral economy” to study the production and circulation of emotions, values, norms, and obligation in relation to humanitarian aid. See Fassin, Didier, Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present Times (Berkeley, CA, 2012)Google Scholar. See also, Thompson, E. P., “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present 50, no. 1 (1971): 76–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Matthews, Derek, A History of Auditing: The Changing Audit Process in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day (London, 2006), 16–17Google Scholar.

9 The concept of virtuous marketplace is borrowed from Thompson, Victoria E., The Virtuous Marketplace: Women and Men, Money and Politics in Paris, 1830–1870 (Baltimore, 2000)Google Scholar. It also refers to the constitutive role of virtue in the language of relief work. See Mindry, Deborah, “Nongovernmental Organizations, ‘Grassroots,’ and the Politics of Virtue,” Signs 26, no. 4 (2001): 1187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The notable exceptions were specific war charities that were regulated and registered as a result of two acts in 1916 and 1940 respectively. The 1940 act was repealed by the 1992 Charities act. In contrast, the 1872 Friendly Societies Act formally subjected organizations such as Friendly Societies to auditing and transparency rules.

11 The Charities Act of 1960 also repealed various mortmain and charitable Trusts Acts of 1853, 1856, and 1860.

12 The charitable donors' predicament, who to trust, mirrored that of investors in the capitalist market. See Taylor, James, Boardroom Scandal: The Criminalization of Company Fraud in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Hanson, John H., “Strategic Management and Fundraising: A Planning Model for Resource Development in the Nonprofit Organisation,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2, no. 4 (1997): 315–23, at 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Harrison, “Philanthropy and the Victorians,” 364.

15 Harrison, Brian, Peaceable Kingdom: Stability and Change in Modern Britain (Oxford, 1982), 217–59Google Scholar.

16 Cooke, Hugh and Harwood, R.G., The Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853, 1855, 1860, the Charity Commissioners Jurisdiction Act, 1862; the Roman Catholic Charities Acts; Together with a Collection of Statutes Relating to or Affecting Charities, including the Mortmain Acts (London, 1867)Google Scholar; Baker, Mae and Collins, Michael, “The Governance of Charitable Trusts in the Nineteenth Century: The West Riding of Yorkshire,” Social History 27, no. 2 (2002): 162–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, especially 165; Oosterhoff, A. H., “The Law of Mortmain: An Historical and Comparative Review,” University of Toronto Law Journal 27, no. 3 (1977): 257–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These rules applied best to hospitals and schools: see, in particular, Waddington, Keir, Charity and the London Hospitals, 1850–1898 (London, 2000)Google Scholar.

17 See for example Times, 5 July 1872; Manchester Guardian, 16 March 1898. See also, Vorspan, Rachel, “Vagrancy and the New Poor Law in Late-Victorian and Edwardian England,” English Historical Review 92, no. 362 (1977): 59–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Clark, Anna, Scandal: The Sexual Politics of the British Constitution (Princeton, NJ, 2004), 2–15Google Scholar.

19 Poovey, Mary, ed., The Financial System in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2003), 3–5Google Scholar.

20 Owen, English Philanthropy, 218.

21 Times, 10 December 1888. On the emotional charge of the festive season see Moore, Tara, “Starvation in Victorian Christmas Fiction,” Victorian Literature and Culture 36, no. 2 (2008): 489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Armstrong, Neil, Christmas in Nineteenth-Century England (Manchester, 2010), 99–123Google Scholar.

22 Times, 17 November 1888.

23 Ibid., 7 December 1888.

24 Mowat, Charles Loch, The Charity Organisation Society, 1869–1913: Its Ideas and Work (London, 1961)Google Scholar; Bosanquet, Helen Dendy, Social Work in London, 1869–1912: A History of the Charity Organisation Society (London, 1914)Google Scholar; Humphreys, Robert, Sin, Organized Charity and the Poor Law in Victorian England (New York, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 McBriar, A. M., An Edwardian Mixed Doubles. The Bosanquets Versus the Webbs: A Study in British Social Policy 1890–1929 (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Loch, Charles Stewart, Charity and Social Life (London, 1910)Google Scholar; Owen, English Philanthropy, 239–46; Laybourn, Keith, The Guild of Help and the Changing Face of Edwardian Philanthropy: The Guild of Help, Voluntary Work and the State, 1904–1919 (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.

26 Owen, English Philanthropy, 229.

27 Low's and Fry's guides went through several editions and name changes. Low, Sampson, Low's One Shilling Guide to the Charities of London: Corrected to April 1863 (London, 1863)Google Scholar; Fry, Herbert, The Shilling Guide to the London Charities for 1864–65 (London, 1864)Google Scholar; Hawksley, Thomas, The Charities of London and Some Errors of the Administration (London, 1869)Google Scholar.

28 Annual Charities Register and Digest (1890), vol. 2Google Scholar.

29 Samples of Cautionary Cards available in COS archives. For example, Cautionary Card (1897), A/FWA/C/A/03/035; Cautionary Card (1907), A/FWA/C/A/03/043/01, London Metropolitan Archives (hereafter LMA).

30 Charles Stewart Loch, initially a COS volunteer, became secretary in 1875, serving until 1914. According to his obituary, “He made the COS. He was the COS.” Times, 25 January 1923.

31 COS correspondence: letter from Miss S. M. Arnott, undated, Hostel of St. Luke, A/FWA/C/D/225/1, LMA; Harry Smith to COS, 28 June 1897, Mission to Fallen Women, A/FWA/C/D/009/2, LMA; W. Tweed to COS, 13 December 1901, Gordon Boys Orphanage, A/FWA/C/D/178/1, LMA.

32 See, for example, undated news cutting, Great Arthur Street Mission, COS, A/FWA/C/D/26/008, LMA; news cutting, March 1882, National Union for the Suppression of Intemperance, A/FWA/C/D/86/001, LMA.

33 See, for example, a sequence of responses to a COS Times advertisement against Reuben May, 1880–81, Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/26/6-9, LMA.

34 For a superb example of this, see the archives of the 3rd Duke of Sutherland held in Staffordshire County Record Office (hereafter SCRO), Series D 593/V/10. They include the full range of appeals received and patronized between 1880 and 1906 and show well the scale of targeted appeals to the wealthier members of society.

35 On the Barnardo arbitration controversy, see Wagner, Gillian, Barnardo (London, 1979), 86–172Google Scholar; Koven, Seth, Slumming: Sexual and Social Politics in Victorian London (Princeton, 2004), 88–139Google Scholar. There were other ways of dealing with the risk of libel: one roman à clef, in vague terms, “exposed” a fraudulent charity mission; see Pullen, H. W., The World of Cant (London, 1892), 329–36Google Scholar; see also on this general topic Latham, Sean, The Art of Scandal: Modernism, Libel Law and the Roman à Clef (Oxford, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 For the similarly dichotomous role of the press in the financial markets, see Taylor, James, “Watchdogs or Apologists? Financial Journalism and Company Fraud in Early Victorian Britain,” Historical Research 85, no. 230 (2012): 632–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Henry Du Pré Labouchere (1831–1912) was Liberal parliamentary representative for Northamptonshire for twenty-five years from 1880 and an energetic journalist whose exposés often preempted those of W. T. Stead, the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. Labouchere is best remembered for proposing the clause on homosexuality to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, under which Oscar Wilde was tried. Weber, Gary, “Henry Labouchere, Truth and the New Journalism of Late Victorian Britain,” Victorian Periodicals Review 26, no. 1 (1993): 36–43Google Scholar (37); Hirshfield, Claire “Labouchere, Truth and the Uses of Anti-Semitism,” Victorian Periodicals Review 26, no. 3 (1993): 134–42Google Scholar. See also, Thorold, A. L., The Life of Henry Labouchere (London, 1913)Google Scholar.

38 Truth, 5 July 1877–23 August 1877.

39 Truth, 26 July 1877; Truth, 2 August 1877; Padroni, more usually associated with America, were middlemen who rented out the labor of their fellow Italian immigrants. See Cosco, Joseph P., Imagining Italians: The Clash of Romance and Race in American Perceptions, 1880–1910 (New York, 2003), 15Google Scholar.

40 Truth, 9 August 1877.

41 Truth, 19 July 1877; Truth, 23 August 1877. The COS had extensive files on all of these institutions: Dr. Barnardo's, A/FWA/C/D/10/1, LMA; Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/26/1, LMA; London Society for Employment of Necessitous Gentlewomen, A/FWA/C/D/39/1, LMA; Middlesex Soup Kitchen, A/FWA/C/D/28/1, LMA. For a report on the COS investigation of Reuben May, see also Christian Commonwealth, 22 April 1886.

42 Truth, 23 August 1877.

43 For Labouchere versus the Zierenbergs, proprietors of the St. James Home for Inebriates, see Standard, 14 December 1893; for the unsuccessful libel case taken by the begging letter writer G. Brooks see Liverpool Mercury, 18 December 1896; for a rare case that went against Labouchere see Reynolds' Newspaper, 2 December 1894. Here, the plaintiff, a Reverend Macmillan, was granted only a farthing in compensation and told he should never have taken the case.

44 Wontner and Co. solicitors to C.S. Loch, 2 November 1892, St James Home for Female Inebriates, A/FWA/C/D/70/6, LMA.

45 Loch to Times editor, 16 February 1887, Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/26/015, LMA.

46 This was initially carried in the columns of the main paper as a “twelvemonth's black list” from 1903; from 1906 it was a supplement to the paper; from 1907 it was available to buy separately. Truth, 22 January 1903; Truth, 6 February 1907; Truth, 12 February 1908. The association between Truth and scandal reportedly cost Labouchere a post in the 1892–95 Liberal government when Queen Victoria refused to sanction the editor and proprietor of Truth holding office under the crown. Herbert Sidebotham, Rev. H. C. G. Matthew, “Henry Du Pré Labouchere,” Oxford DNB, http://www.oxforddnb.com.

47 See, for example, Dundee Courier & Argus, 4 January 1894; Penny Illustrated Paper, 26 January 1895; North-Eastern Daily Gazette, 27 August 1896; Daily Dispatch, 2 March 1908; Swinton and Pendlebury Journal, 10 September 1909.

48 Arthur Newman to C. S. Loch, 9 March 1897, Christian Mission to the Fallen and Outcast Women, A/FWA/C/D/92, LMA.

49 COS to J. P. Watson, 11 December 1914, A/FWA/C/D/57/1, LMA.

50 Truth, 13 December 1877.

51 St Agatha's Mission, A/FWA/C/D/31/1, LMA; League of Welldoers, A/FWA/C/D/283/1, LMA.

52 Note by J. W. B. Hunt, 9 November 1911, Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/026/022, LMA; COS to the C. Mayell, Scotland Yard, 10 October 1927, Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/026/022, LMA.

53 Personal papers, of the 3rd Duke of Sutherland, D593/P/26/2/3, SCRO; Finance & Central Committee Records, D593/P/26/2/4, SCRO.

54 Abbott, L. J. and Park, Y., Parker, S., “The effects of audit committee activity and independence on corporate fraud,” Managerial Finance 26, no. 11 (2000): 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Loch to Mr. Cruckenthorpe, 12 December 1900, St Giles Christian Mission, A/FWA/C/D/19/005, LMA.

56 So much so that, as with Lee and Lloyd Jones, those who denounced others were also liable to investigation.

57 The phrase “modern Babylon” to refer to the modern city became increasingly popular in this period as fears of degeneration peaked. See, for example, Greenwood, James, Unsentimental Journeys; or, Byways of the Modern Babylon (London, 1867)Google Scholar; Pennell, Henry C., Modern Babylon, and Other Poems (London, 1873)Google Scholar; Stead, W. T., The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon: The Report of the Secret Commission, ed. Simpson, Anthony E. (Lambertville, NJ, 2007)Google Scholar.

58 See Craig, Ruskin and the Ethics of Consumption, 240.

59 It should be noted that some charitable schemes in this period openly advertised “for profit” returns, notably Octavia Hill's guaranteed returns for “investments” on model lodging programs. The transparency of this model, and the distribution of dividends among shareholders, placed such schemes in an entirely different category to private individuals siphoning “profit” for personal use. See Morris, Susannah, “Market Solutions for Social Problems: Working-Class Housing in Nineteenth-Century London,” Economic History Review 54, no. 3 (2001): 525–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wohl, A. S., “Octavia Hill and the Homes of the London Poor,” Journal of British Studies 10, no. 2 (1971): 105–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Correspondence between Lee Jones and Lloyd Jones, M364 LWD/28/5/1, Liverpool City Archive (hereafter LCA).

61 M364 LWD/28/5/4, LCA. See Jones's list in correspondence with Asst. Head Constable and Head Constable of Liverpool Police and editors of Liverpool press, 8 February 1905. The “questionable” charities were Pastor Black's Children's Homes and Mission; Mr. Baxter's Old Forecastle Mission; Mr. Housley's United Christian Mission; Rev. Hugh L. Jones's Gospel News Children's Mission; Mrs. Morris's White Rock Home for Children; Mrs. H. S. Pike's Shoeblack's Home. Later investigations extended to include Mrs. Price's Bethesda Mission and Training Home for Friendless Girls. M364 LWD/28/1/58, LCA.

62 For the sake of consistency with the archival references, this article will use the name League of Welldoers (LWD) throughout.

63 For extent of charity's debts, see assorted correspondence and documents in M364 LWD 15/40-41; 15/50-59; 15/61 and 15/107, LCA.

64 Lee Jones's anxiety about confused identities was not misplaced; the metropolitan-based Charity Organisation Society investigated whether Lee Jones was, in fact, Lloyd Jones. See Charity Organisation Society Enquiry department files, A/FWA/C/D/283/1, LMA.

65 Lee Jones's notes, M364 LWD/28/5/1, LCA. No record of ordination could be traced and in census returns for 1901 and 1911, Lloyd Jones's occupation appeared as a publisher and “missioner.” Census of England and Wales, return for Hugh Jones, 8 Grey Rock Street, West Derby, 1901; Hugh Jones, 2 Elgin Street, Birkenhead, 1911.

66 Porcupine, 3 February 1905.

67 Press cuttings from Birkenhead News and Liverpool Courier, 20 April 1907, M364 LWD 28/5/1-2, LCA.

68 Press cutting, Birkenhead News, 1907, M364 LWD 28/5/1-2, LCA.

69 Unspecified press cutting, 18 January 1902, M364 LWD/28/5/1, LCA and Rotherham Advertiser, 18 January 1902.

70 Lee Jones's notes, M364 LWD/28/5/1, LCA.

71 See letter from James McKinley to J. Griffin, editor of Birkenhead News, forwarded in correspondence to Lee Jones, 31 May 1908, M364 LWD/28/5/8, LCA.

72 Census of England and Wales, return for William Ellis Jones, 2 Elgin Street, Birkenhead, 1911; Gospel News Mission Appeal, 28 November 1910, M364 LWD/28/5/7, LCA.

73 Correspondence between Jones and Asst. Head Constable Liverpool Police, 16 August 1907, M364.LWD/28/5/4, LCA. Some proceedings were brought against suspect children's charities for neglect. See especially, details of prosecution against White Rock Home for child neglect, M364 LWD/28/3/10-11, LCA.

74 See Manchester Guardian, 19 August, 7 September 1908; Times, 8 September 1908.

75 See, for instance, collected press cuttings relating to Bethesda and White Rock Children's Homes, M364 LWD/28/1/21 and 27, LCA; M364 LWD/28/2/24, LCA. For the complex appeal of waifs to the public see especially Davin, Anna, “Waif Stories in Late-Nineteenth-Century England,” History Workshop Journal 52, no. 1 (2001): 67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, Lionel, The Erosion of Childhood: Child Oppression in Britain, 1860–1918 (London, 1991), 80–90Google Scholar.

76 Balance sheet and commentary reprinted in Welldoer, March 1908, M364 LWD/28/5/1, LCA.

77 Jones was aware of national “cautionary list” schemes; copies of the Truth Cautionary List scheme, discussed below, and correspondence with the editor of Truth are collated in his archive, M364 LWD/28/5/6, LCA and he corresponded with the editor of this list regarding several of his “questionable” charities: M364 LWD/28/1/12 and LWD 28/1/2; M364 LWD/28/2/15; M364 LWD/28/3/15-18, LCA.

78 Jones's petitioning echoed the Newspaper Society's monthly circular that warned editors of fraudulent advertisers. See Silberstein-Loeb, Jonathan, “Puff Pieces and Circulation Scams: Middlemen and the Making of the Newspaper Advertising Market, 1881–1901,” Business Archives 103 (2011): 77–92Google Scholar.

79 See, for instance, Lee Jones's correspondence with editor of Liverpool Courier, 20 December 1907, regarding Pastor Black's Children's Homes and J. Griffin, editor of Birkenhead News, 31 May 1908, regarding Reverend Jones, M364 LWD/28/5/8, LCA.

80 Liverpool Courier, 26 December 1909. Jones was adept at transforming the mundane into something extraordinary: a routine letter from the Royal palace congratulating the correspondent on good works was trumpeted as a personal endorsement of the Mission from the King and Queen. See cuttings from Birkenhead News, 1911, M364 LWD/28/5/1, LCA.

81 Correspondence between Lloyd Jones and Lee Jones 9 October 1907, M364 LWD/28/5/17-18 and 23, LCA.

82 Charity in Liverpool was divided largely along sectarian lines, between Catholic and non-Catholic organizations. See Belchem, John, Irish, Catholic and Scouse: The History of the Liverpool Irish (Liverpool, 2007)Google Scholar. Lee Jones, in all his literature and promotional materials, explicitly refused to affiliate with any denomination, creed, ethnic, or confessional group.

83 Correspondence between Lee Jones and key local figures 1893–1910, M364LWD/11-22. Rathbone thought that the elite had a responsibility to lead efforts to relieve the poor. See Rathbone, William, Social Duties: Considered with Reference to the Organization of Effort in Works of Benevolence and Public Utility (London, 1867)Google Scholar.

84 Guardian, 15 March 1905. League of Welldoers, A/FWA/C/D/283/1, LMA. Margaret Simey in her history of charitable effort in Liverpool was less forgiving, arguing that Jones had all the “skill of an advertising agent,” was combative in denouncing others, but had no regard—in his first decade at least—for accounting of income and expenditure. See Simey, Margaret, Charity Rediscovered: A Study of Philanthropic Effort in Nineteenth-Century Liverpool (Liverpool, 1992), 119–23Google Scholar.

85 M364 LWD 15/145 and 20/29-35; for instance, M364 LWD 15/38; 15/78-79; 15/81-85 and 15/5-6.

86 Correspondence with John Rowland, 21 February 1905, M364 LWD/28/5/12, LCA.

87 For practices associated with “naming and shaming,” see Croll, Andy, “Street Disorder, Surveillance and Shame: Regulating Behaviour in the Public Spaces of the Late Victorian British Town,” Social History 24, no. 3 (1999): 250–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Truth, 25 March 1880.

89 Loch to George Prior, 6 August 1885, Great Arthur Street Mission, A/FWA/C/D/26/012, LMA.

90 That newspapers performed a contradictory role in promoting and exposing frauds is underscored here; the editor of John Bull was the fraudulent Horatio Bottomley. See Hyman, Alan, The Rise and Fall of Horatio Bottomley: The Biography of a Swindler (London, 1972)Google Scholar.

91 “A Reverend Rascal,” John Bull, 4 July 1914, 8, M364LWD/28/5/21, LMA.

92 Times, 2 July 1880; Truth, 24 May 1900. Labouchere had long been a strong ally of Chamberlain. On the Charity Commission's inadequacies, see Owen, English Philanthropy, 215–46.

93 H. L. Hansard, “Prevention of Frauds on Charitable Funds Bill,” 3rd series, 216 (London, 1873), 1848–51; Bosanquet, Social Work in London, 119–21.

94 French, Michael and Phillips, Jim, Cheated not Poisoned? Food Regulation in the United Kingdom, 1875–1938 (Manchester, 2000)Google Scholar; MacDonagh, Oliver, Early Victorian Government, 1860–1870 (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

95 Times, 10 December 1888; Times, 17 December 1888.

96 Truth, 19 July 1877.

97 Truth, 25 March 1880; Truth, 20 November 1890; Truth, 20 April 1905.

98 Truth, 25 March 1880; Truth, 14 August 1890. For some, the legislation was “tardy and ineffective”; more recently James Taylor has disputed this, suggesting that more cases (approximately ten per year), of corporate crime came before the courts in the late nineteenth century than is generally imagined. Taylor, Boardroom Scandal. See also Briggs, John et al. , Crime and Punishment in England: An Introductory History (London, 1996), 187–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Robb, George, White-Collar Crime in Modern England: Financial Fraud and Business Morality, 1845–1929 (Cambridge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Truth, 20 November 1890.

100 Caminada, Jerome, Twenty-Five Years of Detective Life (Manchester, 1895), 236Google Scholar.

101 “A Reverend Rascal,” John Bull, 4 July 1914, 8. M364LWD/28/5/21, LCA.

102 Lloyd Jones fund-raising material, M364 LWD/28/5/9, LCA.

103 Samuel Hawkes to Lee Jones, 18 May 1908, LWD M364, 28/1/5, LCA.

104 Truth, 14 August 1890.

105 Annual Charities Register and Digest (London, 1890)Google Scholar.

106 See Krotz, Joanna L., Town and Country: A Guide to Intelligent Giving. How You Can Make a Difference in the World (New York, 2009)Google Scholar; see also web-based donor guides at http://www.thinknpc.org (New Philanthropy Capital, which has now subsumed the sometimes controversial http://www.intelligentgiving.com) and http://www.charitynavigator.org.

107 Truth, 10 July 1890–14 August 1890.

108 Ibid., 20 April 1905.

109 Darby, Michael R. and Karni, Edi, “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud,” Journal of Law and Economics 16 no. 1 (1973): 67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Hopgood, Stephen, “Saying No to Wal-Mart? Money and Morality in Professional Humanitarianism,” in Barnett, M. and Weiss, Thomas G, eds., Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power and Ethics (Ithaca, NY, 2008), 98–123Google Scholar. See also, Farber, David B., “Restoring Trust after Fraud: Does Corporate Governance Matter?,” Accounting Review 82, no. 2 (2005): 539–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Matthews, Derek, A History of Auditing: The Changing Audit Process in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day (London, 2006), 16–17Google Scholar.