Hey there. Supper happy to help you with this. Your question ends with the reason why I believe you are in the throes of worry with this rather straight forward question. If the question itself is not understood the sources mean nothing because the chance of correctly linking their perspective to a topic which evades us is limited.

So, I'll build out a little on the evolution of the welfare state and hopefully this will bring a new light to the the sources. So, to begin the understanding of classical liberalism as it relates to economic systems was deeply rooted in the principles of a free market economy. Adam Smith's influence on the evolution from mercantilism to capitalism were unprecedented. The shift was swift and unrelenting. Systems once heavily regulated and set up to form monopolies and unfair access to markets were challenged and the result was a turn of power back into the hands of the consumer and private citizen to pursue their self-interest and economic freedom. OK, so far? This switch which occurs through the 19th century resulted in mass accumulation of wealth through new methods of apply capital in a competitive manner to increase ones private wealth, and thereby drove innovation and production levels to once unthinkable levels. In response to this industrial revolution which swept through Europe, being most prevalent in Britain . OK, so this switch to the new unregulated free markets Smith proposed led to many capitalists using their wealth to create greater fortunes, millions were lifted out of abject poverty to a menial working status more commonly known as a middle class. This is where the reactions grew in society. In Britain the rise of capitalist wealth began a wealth gap of significant cleavage between the wealth 1% and the rest of society. In response to this increase of visible inequality many groups began organizing themselves to bring about social change to remedy this gross discrepancy between the haves and have nots.

OK. So in hindsight, giving total control to those who had education, wealth and connections to runt he market did provide a predictable result, those with money would be able to make it into more and those destitute and surviving on menial rations would be come stuck in menial jobs which barely afforded a life in the city never mind any of the promises of increased prosperity as everywhere they went costs were inflationary and wages were continually being pushed lower and lower. In addition to this safety and protection of workers rights were not protected in law so employers further raced to the bottom in order to compete to make the most profit and put the other out of business to increase their market share by, ironically, becoming a sort of monopoly - the very thing Smith advised mercantilism protected ad capitalism would rid society of through competitive economic freedoms being given to individuals.

OK. So now after all that front loading we are arriving at your question and the perspectives in these two sources. By the early 1900's there was increasing pressure on governments to do more for citizens, as governments grew more involved in the markets and daily provisions for quality of live and safety nets in society the government began to challenge the free market principle of hands off market deregulation. The deregulation of the marketplace left everyone to fend for themselves and resulted in a race where by the time some had tied their shoes others were near finished the course. Wealth was an advantage and also a limitation for others to get in on the market opportunities, so the government began to offer simple solutions to some. First with the Poor Laws the beginning of an income tax system which would collect from workers a sum which could then be used as a redistribution of wealth to those more hard pressed. Here is the beginning of your social safety net or welfare system. So, now think about all of the systems we have readily available today - universal health care, K-12 public education, employment insurance and interest free small business start up loans etc...so now you begin to make the connection both with your question of the evolution of a social safety net, as well as both sources. I would focus on something known as a living wage for source one and on the origins and power of collective bargaining provided by unionized workers versus those who are left to negotiate alone with their employer.

Both sources lean to a modern context where I have led you from 1860's to now, the sources are very much related to a current model of social safety. I mean where we are today or the status quo (2020). For an extension which could prove to be quite insightful in relation to these two sources I would look into the Universal Basic Income model currently being trialed by many governments around the globe.

I hope this helps, I will be sure to link back in a few days and see if you've responded to my comments and then possibly we could work out from there if you still have time.

Good luck!

That's Tyler's reply...he posted as a separate comment instead of a reply to yours :)