PHP&S - Poor Law Amendemnt Act Flashcards
1832 royal commission of inquiry into the operation of the poor law
The Captain Swing Riots of 1830n were the catalyst for forming a Royal Commission to examine how the current poor laws were operating
These were brought on by exorbitant prices and the underemployment and unemployment of agricultural labourers
Landowners were a lame red by the riots because they could see how rural society was deteriorating
They sought to alter the poor laws to restore some social control, reasoning that if landowners - who were also employers - controlled how poor replied was distributed, they could then keep an eye on workers’ behaviour
Thomas Hyde Villiers, the brother of the Earl of Clarendon, proposed the creation of a Royalo Commission
The son of Prime Minister Earl Grey, Lord Howick, the Undersecretary of the Home Office, received Viller’s recommendations
These men were Whigs, who had just retain power
They were seen as progressive
Possibly even radical - the most dangerous thing to be
To promote the passage of scientific legislation, the Royal Commission as established in 1823, when utilitarianism predominated in Britain
The Commission’s mandate called for a thorough investigation into how the poor laws were implemented, a report on the various forms of assistance, and recommendations for revisions to the current legislation
However, Sir James Graham claimed in letters to Sir Robert Peel dates 26 December 1841 and 17 September 1842 that the Whig government had already decided what it planned to do when it created the Commission
The Royal Commission supplied the proof necessary to support the government’s suggested policies
26 Assistant Commissioners were given a daily stipend and sent out to gather witness testimony throughout England and Wales, and they each made 3,000 church visits
They were given clear instructions to speak with magistrates, poor overseers and clergy
They also had the authority to look into parish finances to determine the amount of money distributed to the needy
The inquires they made were meant to highlight the negative impact of the current system and pointed in the direction of the solution provided by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834
Data was gathered through 3 questionnaires sent to rural and town parishes, with around 10% responding voluntarily
The abundance of information proved challenging to analyse, leading to the development of hardwiring assistant commissioners
These assistants, compensated with a daily allowance, not a salary, were assigned specific districts and visited approx. 3,000 parishes, representing 1/5 of Poor Law districts
The commissioners published the collected information in 13 volumes as appendices to their report
Political economist Nassau Senior showed a particular interest in the Commission’s work
7 January, he stats that he desired the establishment of a central administration for poor relief in London, with paid inspectors overseeing each region of roughly 70 parishes
Senior also wishes to have paid overseers of the poor for every third parish
Instead of the current 2,000 magistrates and 30,000 overseers, the outcome would have been the employment of thee central inspectors, 200 magisterial inspectors and 4,700 overseers
Additionally, he supported the idea of a deterrent workhouse
1832 Royal Commission’s findings
The commission found that the former system needed to be better and more expensively run, presumably predetermined
These recommendation of the Commission were founded on two tenets
Less eligibility:
- workhouse circumstances should be made worse than the worst situations outside them so that only the most desperate would consider entering them
Workhouse test:
- only the workhouse should offer relief
- under this arrangement, developing country residents’ migration to the city in search of employment was an issue for urban ratepayers
The commissions report made serval significant recommendations:
- out-relief should cease
- different classes of paupers should be segregated
- the new system would be undermined if different unions treated their paupers differently
- mothers of illegitimate children should receive much less support
1832 Royal Commission findings
Concluded that this interfered with the natural rules of supply and demand, which undermined the country’s prosperity
They should have avoided presuming that employees and employers could negotiate on an equal footing, which they could not and did not do
The commissioners contended that the current methods of poor relief permitted dishonest farmers and employers to purposefully preserver a pool of surplus labour and drive down wages since they know the workers might fall on the rates if it suited their interest
There is an argument that in many cases questions were intentionally designed to get specific ore unclear answers
For Example, the term “allowance” in the questionnaires had different meanings
The final report wrongly suggested that allowances to supplement wages, like the Speenhamland system, were widespread, overlooking their decline in the 1820s
Interviews were also biased, guiding witnessed along predetermined paths
This allowed the creation of a report that seemed based on a wealth of evidence but, in truth, obscured the complexity of existing poor relief
Poor Law Amendment Act 1834
The report criticised the old Poor Law, linking it to corrupt practised and demoralised paupers
The commissioners concluded that the law itself caused poverty, distinguishing between natural poverty and the inability to earn enough to live
They were cornered about the able-bodied poor individuals who couldn’t or wouldn’t earn sufficient income, proposing radical changes for efficiency:
- separate workhouses should be provided for the aged and infirm, children, able-bodied women and able-bodied men
- parishes should group into unions for the purpose of providing these workhouses
- all relief outside workhouses should stop, and conditions inside the workhouses should be such that no one would willingly enter them
- a new, central authority should be established, with powers to make and enforce regulations concerning the workhouse system
Under the previous system, local parishes provided outdoor assistance to a broad class of people, icl during able-bodied workers
They did so in various ways, including in-kind grants, cash and wage supplements
The old system aimed to replace one that dated back to the reign of Elizabeth I
The New Poor Law, a collection of measures passed in 1834, intended to eliminate outside assistance for the physically fit while also establishing massive administrate structures subject to a centralised authority
The purpose of the act was to radically reform the system of poor relief in England and Wales making it cost effective and efficient
To this end, it laid down that:
- a central authority should be set up to supervise the implementation and regulate the administration of the Poor Law
- parishes were to be grouped together to form Poor Law unions to provide relief efficiently
- parishes were to grouped together to form poor law unions to provide relief efficiently
- each poor law union was to establish a workhouse in which inmates would live in conditions that were worse than those of the poorest independent labourer
- outdoor relief for able-bodied was to be discouraged bit, significantly, was not abolished
The workhouse exam was a vital component of the New Poor Law
Relief workers could not refuse to help the needy, but they could ‘offer the home’ which required the applicant to go to the workhouse in order to receive aid
This was not a desirable alternative because inmates in the workhouse were kept in purposefully uncomfortable conditions
Large local units called unions were created by joining parishes
Finally, 600 poor law unions were created from England’s 15,000 parishes
Unlike the parish vestries, the board of guardians might beg required, at least in theory, to follow the rules of the poor law board
Therefore, at the municipal and national levels, the new poor law resulted in a degree of centralisation at the administrative level
The royal commission’s second primary recommendations was that the able-bodied and their families would only be eligible for poor relief in workhouses under conditions less eligible than the working poor
The new poor law also attempted to limit outdoor relief to the sick and elderly
How was the poor law commission set up?
A central poor law commission was established to administer the poor law amendment act throughout the country
There were three commissioners:
- Thomas Frankland Lewis, who had been a Tory MP actively involved in the Sturges-Bournees select committee of 1817-18
- George Nichols, a retried sea captain and Bank of England official, who had been a radical overseer in Nottingham under the old poor law
- John Shaw-Lefevre, a lawyer who had been a Whig MP and under-Secretary of state for war and the colonies
The secretary to the commission was the utilitarian lawyer, Edwin Chadwick
The commissioners were assisted by 9 assistant commissioners (the number varied overtime), whose job it was to make sure that decisions made centrally were implemented at local level in the parishes
The poor law commission policy, after 1834, had 2 priories:
- the transfer out out-of-work and underemployed workers in rural areas to urban areas whee employment of plentiful
- the protection of Urban ratepayers from a sudden surge of demand from rural migrants prior to their obtaining regular employment
It was possible to meet north priorities
A programme of workhouse construction met the first one: the setting up of a string of workhouses, offering relief to able-bodied poor of the less eligibility principle, that could drive potential paupers to find work in towns and cities
The settlement laws tried to tackle the secondary priority: the poor rates would be kept low, and would not fall disproportionately on the towns if the settlement laws were stringently applied, returning the seekers of relief to their home parishes
Edwin Chadwick
Sir Edwin Chadwick KCB was and English social reformer reserved for his insitaive in overhauling the Poor Laws in England and enacting significant changes to cities’ public health and sanitary conditions
He was a follower of Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, and was most active between 1832 and 1854
After that, he occupied subordinate positions and his opinions were generally disregarded
The 1834 poor law, predicated on the idea that making receiving poor relief so unpleasant would deter all expect the neediest, as one of Chadwick;s creations
While serving as the Impoverished Law Commissioner’s secretary, he looked into the problem of poor people’s sanitation
Because the poor law commission did not wnat to be linked with the report, the self-published the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain in 1842
Workhouses
The English poor relief system’s stricture and underlying principles were intended to be alerted by the poor law reform act5 of 1834
Using the workhouse test to end outside assistance for the physically fit was a vital component of the new poor law
Paupers were housed and fed in big, centrally located workhouses
The workhouse test was a straightforward administrative tool that allowed official to require that someone apply for poor relief to enter a workhouse before granting them help
Despite opposition, the measure passes, and the work house system was inaugurated on 13 August 1834
Workhouse system:
- poor people were treated brutally by the system
- couples were split up, parents were taken away from their kids and there wasn’t enough food
- poor unfortunates caught in circumstances beyond their control were the target of the poor law commission’s determination to lower the poor rate at all costs
The commissioners were thrilled to see the poor rate drop by 20% and the number of paupers drastically decreased, but this wasn’t due to the workhouse system
Rather, the economy was more potent than it has been and the weather had improved
As a new decade dawned, disaster struck
At the beginning of the 1840s, there were more than a million unemployed, and the brand-new workhouses were full
The times Editor John Walter had been the governments loudest critic, and he continued documenting the deteriorating conditions inmates endured in the worst workhouses as they got worse
Workhouse system critics persisted in their campaign of attrition against the government policy
A string of articles based on a times reporter’s research into one of the worst workhouses, the Andover workhouse, brought down the poor law commission and made the scandal public
However, the needy persisted, and the workhouse system continued to exist
It saved countless lives by providing the needy with food, housing, clothing and medical care when they otherwise would not have had any
The idea of a system that might lower expenses for the poor ratepayer and the government while ensuring stability for the country arose over time as a result of criticism from reformers and the middle class
The fact that the poor could be taken care of must have seemed like a good idea at that time, or at least better than nothing
Men’s jobs:
- stone breaking
- grinding corn
- working in the field
- chopping wood
Women:
- laundry
- cleaning
- scrubbing walls and floors
- spinning
- weaving
The most crucial task involved keeping the workhouse operational
The female inmates performed primary domestic chores, including cleaning, cooking, doing laundry, and making and mending clothes
Men were assigned more strenuous duties, such as smashing old animal bones to make garden fertilise and breaking large stones into rubble that was then sold for use in building roads
Old men tended the vegetable plot in the garden and older ladies spun Cotton or crocheted clothing to sell
The food given to paupers in workhouses barely kept them alive
The Poor Law commissioners provided six diet options
The aim was to sustain life, but also make meals dull and unenjoyable, following the principle of less eligibitly
Meantime rules aimed to enforce strict uniformity
Until 1842, meals had to be eaten in silence, and paupers could watch their food being weighed
Some workhouses exploited this rules, serving cold food to humiliate the paupers
The quality of the main meals, consisting of meat, oatmeal, cheese and bread, was often low
In the 1830s, some workhouses even banned cutlery, forcing paupers to eat with their hands and drink from bowls
Workhouse schools for the poor
Children made up approx half of the workhouse population by 1839
Even though families were split up upon entering the workhouse, if the child was under 7, it would generally remain with its mother
Some of these children were orphans, while others came in with their parents
There was apparently not much consideration given to the suffering of children when the poor law amendment act of 1834 was created
But as time passed, it became clear that they required some kind of educational training
Even though poor pauper children were required to attend school for threw hours each day by poor unions, there were concerns that this may elevate them above other middle class children who did not live in workhouses
They were to receive instruction in reading, writing, maths and religion as well as training to become helpful, hardworking individuals
Still operating within their boundaries, several workhouses featured separate school rooms and employed school masters and mistresses
Additionally, workhouse eduction was employed to combat deeply rooted sinful inclinations frequently linked to dependent poverty
The thorough Newcastle commission investigation, on popular eduction, conducted in 1861, mentioned educating children from their vicious propensities and promoting the values of respectability, responsibility and independence in children raised in workhouses, along with combined tactics of moral and intellectual education and religious and vocational training
The 1857 Industrial schools act gave magistrates the authority to enrol juvenile offender in an industrial school
Initially, those who stood before a magistrate for vagrancy were children between the ages of 7 and 15
Children were eventually sent to industrial schools for other offences and those mainly included:
- theft
- being beyond parental control or in need of care
- disruptive behaviour in, or absconding from, the workhouse
Workhouses provided both short and long term care, and at any one time around 20% of all inmates had been onside for 5 or more years
There were regional and local differences, but by and larger pauper were similar:
- young people
- vagrants
- the elderly
- children
- single women
- the mentally ill
Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
Faces fear and anger in parishes, but everyone felt the same way
In places like Cumbria and North Yorkshire with few able-bodied male paupers, the act was seen as irrelevant and there was no need for protest
However, in communities upset by the act’s changes, both the powerful and the poor joined forced to protest together against the alternations in tradition and practise
Fear thrives on rumour and propoganda makes good use of both rumour and the fear that feed its
- union workers were built some distances from the homes of most of those seeking relief. This fuelled the belief that they were extermination centres to keep poor rates low
- the book of murder, widely circulated and erroneously believed to be the work of the poor law commissioners, contained suggestions that pauper children were being gasses
- in Devon, many of the poor believed that bread distributed as part of outdoor relief was poisoned in order to reduce those claiming this form of relief
- rumours circulated that all children over the first three in a pauper’s family were to be killed
Many anti-poor law campaigners believed that the new poor law was introduced specifically to lower the national wage bill. Workhouses, it was argued, we’re supposed to force people onto the labour market, no matter how low the wages
A variant on this theme was the belief that mill owners in the north wanted unemployed agricultural workers from the south to work for them, so deliberately limiting rising wages and brining about a workforce that lived at subsistence levels
There were some genuine fears:
- many attacked the centralisation built into the new poor law. The commissioners were seen as being London based, with no real concern for, understanding of,l the ways of life outside the metropolis
- many feared the replacement of the old poor law by the new would break the traditional, bond between rich and poor, where the local wealthy felt a parental responsibility to the poor
- rural ratepayers realised that outdoor relied was cheaper than indoor relief and were worried that a programme of workhouses building would lead to a higher, not lower, poor rates
- ratepayers in northern industrial areas, prone to cyclical unemployment, realised that to build a workhouse large enough to contain all of those who might need relief in times of depression would be a large costly undertaking, if not an impossible one
John Fielden, an industrialist and owner of textile mills at Todmorden and MP for Oldmand (where he had secured Cobbett’s election) was - like Corbett - a strong opponent of the New Poor Law
Fielden further called for its repeal but all that was achieved was a Select committee which took most of its evidence from the poor law commission and other poor law functions and consequently found much to to praise and little to blame
North Of England:
Since the cost of poor relief was cheaper, there had not been much discontent with the existing poor law in the north
The pace of increase in the price or poor assistance was also unemployment
In Sheffield, it was half as expensive in 1833 as it5 had been 10 years earlier
The first steps towards implementing they system in textile districts of Lancashire and West Riding of Yorkshire did not occur until January 1837
The central commission would then specify a method of assistance for that Union, and the poor law boards would designate a clerk to oversee it
South England:
The southern counties of England were the first to receive the new dispensation because those were the areas with the most difficulties that it was inteded to solve
There, with just slight disruptions, it was able to significantly lower the bad rates
Partial riots had broken out in many counties, but they were put down without causing much damage to poverty thanks to the assistance of small teams of the Metropolitan Police, who were periodically supported by military force
