This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Poor Law Amendment Act is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 sometimes abbreviated to PLAA1 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed by the Whig government of Earl Grey that reformed the country's poverty relief system. While called an Amendment Act it completely replaced earlier legislation based on England's Poor Law of 1601. With reference to this earlier Act the 1834 Act is also known as the New Poor Law.2
The Amendment Act was called for after an investigation by the 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws made up of Edwin Chadwick, George Nicholls and Nassau William Senior. The Act has been described as "the classic example of the fundamental Whig-Benthamite reforming legislation of the period".3
The Amendment Act came two years after the 1832 Reform Act had extended the franchise to the middle-classes. Some historians have argued that this was a major factor in the PLAA being passed.
Contents |
The 1832 Royal Commission's findings
The Royal Commission's findings, which had most probably been predetermined, were that the old system was badly and expensively run. The Commission's recommendations were based on two principles. The first was less eligibility - conditions within workhouses should be made worse than the worst conditions outside of the workhouse so that workhouses served as a deterrent - only the most needy would consider entering them .The other was the "workhouse test", that relief should only be available in the workhouse. A problem with this system was the urban rate payers were faced with a dramatic increase in their poor rate because the principle of less eligibility made the rural poor migrate where there was work.
When the act was introduced however it had been partly watered down. The workhouse test and the idea of "less eligibility" were never mentioned themselves and the recommendation of the Royal Commission - that 'outdoor relief' (relief given outside of a workhouse) should be abolished - was never implemented. Policy officially changed after the passing of the Outdoor Labour Test Order which 'allowed' outdoor relief.
Utilitarianism
Edwin Chadwick, a major contributor to the Commissions report, developed Jeremy Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism, the idea that the success of something could be measured by whether it secured the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This idea of utilitarianism underpinned the Poor Law Amendment Act. Chadwick believed that a central authority was needed to maintain standards and that the poor rate would reach its 'correct' level when the workhouse was seen as a deterrent and fewer people claimed relief. Bentham believed that "the greatest good for the greatest number" could only be achieved when wages found their true levels in a free-market system. Ironically the Poor Law Amendment Act meant greater state intervention.
The Terms of the Poor Law Amendment Act
- The Bill established a Poor Law Commission to oversee the national operation of the system. This included the forming together of small parishes into Poor Law Unions and the building of workhouses in each union for the giving of poor relief.
- The Amendment Act did not ban all forms of outdoor relief. Not until the 1840s would the only method of relief be for the poor to enter a Workhouse. The Workhouses were to be made little more than prisons and families were normally separated upon entering a Workhouse. Outdoor relief was 'discouraged' but not abolished.
- The Act called for parishes to be put into Poor Law Unions so that relief could be provided more easily. Each union was to establish a workhouse which met the principle of less eligibility.
- There were a number of provisions that aimed at stopping previous discrimination against non-conformists and Roman Catholics4
Implementation
The programme of reform was not laid down by Parliament. Commissioners were to interpret and implement the law. When the new Amendment was applied to the industrial North of England (an area the law had never considered during reviews), the system failed catastrophically as many found themselves temporarily unemployed, due to recessions or a fall in stock demands, so called 'cyclical unemployment' and were reluctant to enter a Workhouse, despite it being the only method of gaining aid.
The Poor Law Commission
The central body set up to administer the new system for the Poor Law Commission. The Commission worked in Somerset House and was initially made up of:
- Thomas Frankland Lewis - former Tory MP
- George Nicholls - Overseers of the old system
- John George Shaw Lefevre - A lawyer
- Edwin Chadwick, a writer of the Commission's Poor Law report was only made a Secretary - a decision which made him bitterly disappointed.
The grouped were referred to as the The Barshaws of Somerset House.5
Powers of the Poor Law Commission
The Poor Law Commission was independent of Parliament which made it powerless against criticisms from Parliament itself. Although the Poor Law Commission could issue directives the Poor Law Commission had no real powers to make reluctant parishes implement its directives. However the Poor Law Commission did have powers to veto workhouse appointments, set dietaries, and centralise accounting procedures
Putting Parishes into Unions
The Poor Law Commission had to put parishes into unions as these were to be the administrative unit for the registration of births, marriages and deaths which was to be introduced in 1837. The Assistant Commissioners were in charge of persuading parishes across the country to join up into these unions, because the Commission had no power to force parishes to comply.
Gilbert's Act
One problem with the Poor Law Commission encountered was that many parishes had already grouped together under Gilbert's Act. Many parishes refused to break up these amalgamations.
Select Vestries
Another issue was that some parishes had set up their own Select Vestries under the Sturges-Bourne Act passed in 1819. These were committees which were responsible for Poor Law administration which could employ assistant commissioners. The Act was passed in an attempt to rid the Poor Law relief system of corruption. Some parishes were still using the terms of older Acts rather than the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.
Workhouses
The Poor Law Commission had no powers to insist that unions built new workhouses although they could make them improve existing ones. A Board of Guardians could delay the implementation of the Poor Law Amendment Act through negotiation. Despite the fact that the Act was passed in 1834 most workhouses were erected in the 1850s and 1860s and until then the 'workhouse test' did not operate. In the West Riding,where there had been opposition to the Act, a workhouse was built to discourage the 'mobile poor' from claiming relief – especially the Irish who had come to Britain in huge numbers during the Irish Potato Famine.
Problems with the Poor Law Amendment Act
After 1834 Poor Law policy aimed to:
- Transfer unemployed rural workers to urban areas where there was work
- Protect urban rate payers from paying too much.
It was impossible to meet both as the principle of less eligibility made people search for work in towns and cities. Workhouses were built and paupers transferred to these urban areas. However, the Settlement Laws were used to protect rate payers from paying too much. Workhouse construction and the amalgamation of unions was slow. Outdoor relief did continue after the PLAA.
The board issued further edicts on outdoor relief:
The implementation of the act proved impossible particularly in the industrial north which suffered from cyclical unemployment. Outdoor relief was both more humane and cheaper. The cost of implementing Settlement Laws in operation since the 1600s was also costly and therefore was not implemented fully - it often proved too costly to enforce the removal of paupers. The Commission could issue directives, however these were often not implemented fully and in some cases ignored.
The PLAA was implemented differently and unevenly across England and Wales. One of the criticisms of the 1601 Poor Law was its varied implementation. The law was also interpreted differently in different parishes as each parish had different levels of poverty and different parishes had developed more than others leading to an uneven system. Local Boards of Guardians also interpreted acts of law to suit the interests of their own parishes, resulting in an even greater degree of local variation.
Opposition to the Poor Law
See main article Opposition to the Poor Law.
Fierce hostility and organised opposition from workers, politicians and religious leaders eventually lead to the Amendment Act being amended, removing the very harsh measures of the Workhouses to a certain degree. The Andover workhouse scandal, where conditions in the Andover Union Workhouse were found to be inhumane and dangerous, prompted a government review.
Oliver Twist was written in retaliation against the Poor Law.
In the North of England particularly, there was fierce resistance since the system there was considered by local people to be running smoothly. They argued that the nature of cyclical unemployment meant that any new workhouse built would be empty for most of the year and thus a waste of money. However, the unlikely union between property owners and paupers did not last and opposition, though fierce, eventually petered out. In some cases, this was further accelerated by the fact that protests very successfully undermined parts of the Amendment Act and became obsolete.
Historical interpretations
Marxist
The Marxist interpretation of the Poor Law is that the newly-enfranchised middle-classes following the 1832 Reform Act were able to exploit the working classes by legislation which lowered workhouse conditions and made it more difficult to claim poor relief, the New Poor Law would also decrease the amount of tax being paid by the bourgeoisie. The working and pauper classes were still without the vote at this time and left powerless to oppose it.
The workhouse system meant that the peasants and working class could be kept under strict control as opposed to the system of outdoor relief under the old poor law. It was feared that this system could lead to a rise against the ruling class as happened in the French Revolution.
Traditionalist
The traditionalist view is that there was more continuity with the previous system than change. Faced with unrest the rich simply reasserted control.
Revisionist
A mixture of the Marxist and Traditionalist views which states the rich reasserted their control but through a capitalist system which 'exploited' the working class.
See also
References
- ^ The anti-Poor Law campaign
- ^ The New Poor Law - 1834 - Britain
- ^ The Poor Law Amendment Act: 14 August 1834
- ^
"Poor Laws". Catholic Encyclopedia. (1913). New York: Robert Appleton Company. - ^ Workhouse
External links
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 23 October 2008, at 10:42.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Poor Law Amendment Act".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.