Poverty And Pauperism: The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act Flashcards
What did the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 detail?
- The creation of a central authority, the Poor Law Commission, to oversee the new legislation
- The grouping of parishes together and establishing in each a workhouse that would be the main source of poor relief. Inmates were to live in conditions worse than those of the independent labourer outside of the institution – this is the principle of ‘less eligibility’. 150,000 parishes became 600 larger parishes
- The discouragement of outdoor relief for the able-bodied poor
Who was the Poor Law Commission run by?
- Thomas Frankland-Lewis; a former Tory MP
- George Nicholls; a previous overseer of the old Poor Law
- JG Shaw-Lefevre; lawyer
Why was the Workhouse Regime initiated?
Primarily due to the ‘indolence’ view of the poor that had been taken on by many since the outbreak of the 1800s. It was believed that systems like the Speenhamland System had made it too easy to claim support and could be manipulated – in the case of the Speenhamland System it was rewarding larger families.
How many workhouses had been constructed by 1839 as a direct result of the amendment act?
350
How much did the Banbury workhouse cost in 1835?
to house 300 people cost £6,200
What were the main features of a workhouse?
- 10 hour working day
- No spare time
- Physically demanding work (example: breaking stones for road building in Guildford)
- Basic diet of bread, cheese and gruel
- Tobacco, alcohol and snuff banned
- Uniforms
- Gender segregation
Who opposed the introduction of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act?
(a) Tory MPs
(b) Radical MPs
(c) Northern protests
(d) Southern protests
Why did the Tory party oppose the act?
Out of a general sense of partisanship, given the fact the measure was passed by the Whigs under Earl Grey.
The Tories objected to the centralised nature of the new Poor Law system as they felt it undermined the independence of the local magistrates.
The Tory party were also fearful that the government was taking too active a role in the implementation of poor relief which had previously only be completed by private citizens
Out of a sense of morality: they wanted to promote the same sense of social responsibility as William Pitt had done when he attempted to make the Speenhamland System a national system in 1796. For the Tories, the new system was a callous one which ignored the ‘poor unfortunates’ who hadn’t had the same opportunities and advantages as the rest of society had had.
Why did radical MP William Cobbett oppose the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act?
On the grounds that the amendment meant that the poor didn’t have a ‘right’ to poor relief by making those who applied for it like ‘criminals’. He argued that the new system enlarged the gap between the rich and the poor in society and that those in power had little regard for the experiences of the poorest in society.
Where were there protests surrounding the 1834 Amendment Act in the agricultural south?
(a) Buckinghamshire - people took to the streets when the paupers from the old poorhouse were being transported to the new workhouse. Only when armed yeomanry arrived on the scene were the paupers able to be transported the 3 miles to Amersham from Chalfont St Giles
(b) East Anglia - newly built workhouses were attacked, with the new workhouse in Ipswich being particularly damaged
Where were there protests surrounding the 1834 Amendment Act in the industrialised north?
(i) Armed riots in Oldham and Rochdale were put down by the local militia
(ii) In Bradford in 1838, the assistant commissioner was pelted with stones
(iii) In Stockport in 1842, the workhouse was attacked and the bread distributed to those outside the institution
Why was protest more significant in the north than the south after the 1834 Amendment Act?
Due to the amalgamation of the Middle and Working classes. The Middle Class saw that a more centralised workhouse system was a threat to their authority in charge of factories so attempted to obstruct the new measure at every opportunity. The southern protests were poorly co-ordinated, organised and lacked realistic power against the authorities
