What sprang the trap of the dilemma in which D'Aeth found himself was no less than the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws in 1909 after three long years of gestation. Just as later generations were to experience the frustration of ‘waiting for Seebohm’, so the delay in the completion of the Poor Laws Report had served as a brake on any proposals for reform. The Report proved to be a dismal disappointment. The underlying differences between the Majority and Minority reports as to the principles on which relief should be given were revealed through a spirited campaign, led by Beatrice Webb, a member of the Commission herself. As the Liverpool Courier remarked in a leading article headed ‘Stones for Bread’, ‘As a result of three years’ work, The Royal Commission has produced a document of portentous dimensions, the effect of which – so far as the majority's report is concerned – seems to be principally the suggestion of new names for old things’.

Nevertheless, embedded in the welter of detailed recommendations about the administration of the Poor Laws, there was one recommendation in particular that was to trigger off in Liverpool an immediate response and, incidentally, to alter the whole course of D'Aeth's life. Part 7 of the Majority Report dealt with the confusion of provision for the relief of the poor and urged the need for every town to tackle the problem of how to secure its overall coordination. A pious enough generalisation, but no more than that.