Charles
Russell (1866-1917) was a very significant figure in the
development of boys' clubs work. His (1908) book with Lilian Rigby (later to be
his wife) became the standard handbook on boys' club work. The importance of the
book lay, according to Eagar (1953: 359) in its assertion that clubs are
'purposeful and effective organizations for training adolescent working-boys for
good citizenship'. His approach can be contrasted with that of
Tom Pelham, the writer of the first textbook on lads' work, in
that Russell favoured the use of larger clubs (after the Manchester pattern).
This chapter includes a classic statement of the threefold aims of boys' club
work.
[page18] The early clubs, like many of their successors, undoubtedly started with aspirations which have been far surpassed by their present achievements, and many an original club manager can well appreciate the saying that a man never goes so far as when he does not know whither he is going. Most of them had little clearly defined ambition to do more than “keep the lads off the streets,” though this, of course, was never their sole aim, as is now too often supposed. Nor was the aim merely to make the boys happier. Most of them—irresponsible, reckless, happy-go-lucky creatures with no thought for the future—were happy enough, being boys. With every club we have ever known the inspiring idea all along has been the direct benefit of tire boy rather than that conferred on the community by the removal of turbulent elements— the indirect benefit of society by training the boy to become a good and worthy and God-fearing citizen
But whatever the underlying purpose it could only be attained by the pursuit of definite objects. To begin with, the boys had to be persuaded to come, and it immediately became clear that a club could never [page 19] be of much service to a rough district unless it made arrangements not only for draughts, and bagatelle, and even billiards, all of which could not for long compete against the outside attractions of freedom from restraint, and gambling, but for pleasures most boys could not otherwise obtain, namely, for such indoor exercises as gymnastics, boxing, fives, and swimming, and above all for outdoor games. We may take then as the first object Recreation, for that is the compelling force which brings members to the clubs, and to the vast majority of them it appears first also in importance. Without granting it this place, as do many clubs in effect if not in principle, we can affirm that the provision of amusement is of incalculable value. Boys must have excitement, and if they cannot get it in legitimate ways they will seek it in mischief and in vice. “”Second to drink and second only to drink, the real cause of crime (i.e. crime in general, not juvenile crime) is the difficulty of finding healthy recreation and innocent amusement for the young among the working classes.” (The Lord Chief Justice, June 28, 1905.)
The second object we may call Education, taking the word not in its narrower sense, but as comprising the whole physical, moral, and mental training of the lads. The first object in itself leads to the second, taken in this sense, for it is unnecessary to dwell on the educative effects of properly pursued sports and games. But even the club which is ostensibly purely athletic in aim is not content merely to teach its members how to use their limbs, and give them some conception of the meaning of esprit de corps and fair [page 20] play. It endeavours all the time to civilise its members, to teach them self-respect and self-control, decency in manners and speech, cleanliness, obedience and order, to foster their social instincts, and to widen their interests by the encouragement of reading, games of intellectual skill like chess, and the various hobbies dear to boys. All this is education indeed, but some clubs aim further, and believe it is one of their most important functions to secure some continuance of the school education of their members, whether on the club premises or elsewhere.
The third main object we may call Religion. There is a type of club whose aim is mainly evangelical, and• which makes all its activities centre in a very definite religious effort. But we take the word, like Education, in its widest sense, and use it to comprehend till the impalpable influences which give a club a grip on its boys and tend to awaken their higher nature or further their spiritual development. There are few clubs which do not avow a religious aim by urging attendance at church or chapel, or holding services on their premises. But even where the doors remain shut on Sundays it is the managers’ intention that a boy who aspires to live a decent life may find support and unseen sources of strength within his club.
The aims of some typical lads’ clubs are thus summarised in their annual reports:-
To get lads away from the temptations which assail them in their leisure hours at night, (The Hugh Oldham Lads’ Club, Manchester.)
To brighten young lives and make good citizens. (Salford Lads’ Club.)
[page 21] The physical improvement of the members, their intellectual amid moral progress, the raising of their self-respect and general tone. (Victoria Working Boys’ Club, Whitechapel.)
To promote the instruction, recreation, amid general welfare of lads, and to help and advise them as occasion may require. The promotion of habits of obedience, punctuality, respect, and all that tends to true Christian manliness. The furtherance of Christ’s kingdom among the lads of Southport. (Southport Lads’ Club.)
We have long felt it a very marked fact that in the battle against evil which is now being waged in so many quarters of this city, the great feature of amusement and happiness as an effective moral force has not received its due recognition. It is therefore our first aim to provide for as many of these lads as we can a cheerful, healthy place where they may spend the evenings, a counter-attraction to the music-hall, the street-corner, and the public-house. Secondly, it is our aim to ourselves mix with them freely, and give them, as far as in us lies, the advantage of the better education and tone that a happier fortune has bestowed upon us front our circumstances. We believe strongly that the lads can appreciate and will learn for themselves that subtle something which is called “good form,” which is such an important factor among the higher classes. Thirdly, our aim is to teach them religion, and to help them to learn that the service of God is the highest service, and that therein they will find a fuller and further source of reliance and strength than in anything that the club can give them. Again, it is a sad but undoubted fact that the little children of our London streets are robbed en masse of the delights of a happy childhood, a lad of eight or ten summers being frequently forced to spend all his non-school hours nursing the baby or doing other such work. This lost childhood has to be regained for them, for happiness is the heritage of every child, and without it there can only ensue the grown man [page 22] and grown woman whose life is seared and dull. This is our ground for providing in our work as far as we can such things as engender light-heartedness, joy, and pleasure. (St. Christopher’s Working Boys’ Club, London, W.)
The above will suffice to show that the original idea of providing places which had for their primary object the “keeping of lads off the streets,” has gradually grown into the altogether wider and larger conception of moulding their characters and physique until the elements be so mixed in them that Nature may proclaim them men. The making of men! That, in a word, is the ideal aimed at, and in a later chapter we shall hope to show that it is not altogether unfulfilled.
But there is one aim with which boys’ clubs have been started, and will continue to be started, which seems invariably doomed to a large measure of failure. People who are impelled to undertake the service of their fellows generally begin by wanting to raise those who appear the most in need of a helping hand,—the poorest, the most miserable, the most hopelessly oppressed and degraded by their surroundings. And so it is that club after club has been started with the declared aim of trying to civilise the very roughest or very lowest lads of a district. At first the results may seem fairly successful. The roughest lads—often the very salt of the slums—do come, and after heroic struggles on the part of the founders of’ the club those who remain do become civilised. But as soon as they are civilised the climb is no longer a rough boys’ club, but a club with a standard of respectability such as frightens away prospective new members of the primitive type. This process of levelling-up is inevitable [page 23], for the laws of development which govern such work cannot be resisted. All that can be done is to see that it does not go too far, for a club by becoming too respectable may altogether cease to provide for lads of the class for whom it was designed, whilst others who have opportunities elsewhere usurp their place.
With regard to the lowest in contrast to the roughest lads the failure is more definite. ‘The lads who have no homes, who live in lodging-houses and pick up a precarious living by doing odd jobs and selling papers and flowers, never for any length of time continue attendance at a club, and we do not know of’ one well-ordered institution of the kind regularly made use of by street-boys over fifteen years of age. Those who wish to raise to a worthier life the youth of this type might consider the causes which contribute to his being on the street. It will suffice for the purpose if, putting aside for the moment the inevitable results of over-crowding, bad housing, and general evil environment, they will recollect that many of these boys have never known parental discipline, and having from their earliest years enjoyed a freedom unknown to other children, are utterly opposed to any kind of restraint. They would gladly join and remain in a club in which they could do as they liked, but they will not submit for more than a very few weeks to the absolutely necessary rules of any well-organised club. No steady influence can be brought to bear on them, for they will not attend regularly, amid often disappear after two or three visits.
Can, then, nothing be done for the street-vendor of fifteen to twenty years, for the loafer, the [page 24] incorrigible “ike,” the “ hooligan,” the “ peaky blinder,” (1) the lad who is not ashamed of his periodical visits to prison? Are we simply to leave him alone? We fear indeed that, apart from methods of State compulsion which we have discussed elsewhere, or better still, the abolition of’ time conditions which produce him, nothing can be done. A youth of this class is usually so well contented with his apparently unenviable lot that he will not voluntarily place himself under the influence of any reforming agency. As things are, the only hopeful course seems to be to catch him young and give him a good start. This is what the junior boys’ clubs, which in some few places -- Birmingham, Hull, Sunderland—admit street boys from the age of eight or nine, have made their object. The club at Hull in particular appears to be absolutely unique in many of its methods, and to be doing a work so praiseworthy that in a later chapter we shall describe it iii detail.
It is not only where the original aim has been abandoned that an advance in the inner spirit of boys’ clubs has taken place. In every successful club the growth in the right feeling of the members towards it has, to a greater or less extent, kept pace with the growth in the ideals and aims of their officers. The original members came solely to enjoy themselves, and valued the club only for what they as individuals could get from it. Its honour was nothing to them they would have been nonplused had it been named; and in games their only ambition was to exhibit their [page 25] personal prowess. They knew but little gratitude, for, not taking the trouble to try and understand the motives of the managers, they regarded them with suspicion and wondered what was the real purpose that lay behind their specious friendliness, or, in their own words, “ what they were getting at.” Indeed, the managers were commonly believed to be running the club as a money-making enterprise and to be reaping a rich harvest from the weekly pence of’ the members, who for their part thought they conferred a favour upon them by their patronage. Over and over again we have seen lads listen with amazement when, in explanation of their club’s balance—sheet, we have quietly pointed out that after all their payments do not make up a very large sum, and would never of themselves suffice to keep things going. But in time pride in the club, a spirit of comradeship, some appreciation of the patience and manliness of an officer and real loyalty to him began to grow, amid, as selfish individualism became merged in a larger life, gradually effected a transformation in the character of club boys as a whole, which cannot be better described than in the following passage from the Report (1907) of the Burnley Lads’ Club :—
Not only has the behaviour of the lads improved measurably, but what perhaps is far more important, their attitude to the Club as a Club has completely changed. In the early days the Club was to our lads merely a place f amusement in which to spend their evenings ; the very name by which it was known—”the Gymnasium” - indicated their attitude towards it. It was a place in which to “topple,” to use their own word, or to play games. There was no idea of any higher object, no [page 26] conception of any responsibility arising from their membership. The only outside question which seemed to arouse any degree of interest was that of how we made it pay. Often have I heard groups of lads discussing this question, and trying to strike a balance between time amounts of their weekly pennies and what they thought was a reasonable sum for rent, expenses, and profit. The calculation generally proved too complicated for solution, but they always came to the final decision that it must pay somehow, otherwise we should “chuck it.” Perhaps it has paid, though not in the way they thought. Today, though we are still far from having reached our ideal, great changes for the better have come about. Time has brought to our lads, though they may not be fully conscious of it, some realisation of the fact that Club membership and responsibility go hand in hand ; that the Club does not exist only to give them pleasure, but that it requires certain sacrifices from them ; that on them and on the way they live their lives the good name of the Club depends, and that every lad by reason of his having joined the Club owes as a duty to it and to his fellow-members, that he shall do nothing which can bring disgrace or discredit on his order. In short, we feel that time past years have laid the foundation for a true feeling of esprit de corps, and a striving after the ideal of true manhood.
We have said nothing of’ the material advance of time lads’ club movement—the way in which the clubs have grown in number and the numbers have grown in clubs— for this really explains itself. Inquirers may refer to the lists in the Appendix, where they will find the names, addresses, dates of foundation, number of members, and financial details of all the existing clubs concerning which we have been able to obtain information. The list may seem already fairly long, but it must be hoped that the movement is only [page 27] in its infancy, since out of an estimated (2) boy-population of two millions it appears that lads’ clubs can only lay claim to some twenty-five thousand members. Of course thousands more are to some extent provided for by brigades, (3) evening schools, and religious agencies ; and other thousands find all they need in their homes. Nevertheless Mr. Urwick (4) calculated that there are in Greater London alone at least a hundred thousand boys “in whose lives a good club or brigade would make a difference.”
1. “Ike ‘‘ and ‘ peeky blinder ‘ are respectively the Manchester and Birmingham equivalents of the Loudon ‘‘ hooligan.”
4. Studies of Boy Life in our Cities, 1901.
Taken from Russell, C. E. B. and Rigby, L. M. (1908) Working
Lads' Clubs, London: Macmillan and Co.
This piece has been reproduced here on the understanding that it is not
subject to any copyright restrictions, and that it is, and will remain, in the
public domain.
First published in the archives: October 2001.
