England’s economy and society began to be transformed as population increased, increased industrialisation required greater mobility of Labour and changes in land structure and the character of farming taking place.
From the 1790’s onwards there were individual parishes responding. In 1789, the outbreak of the French Revolution produced shockwaves which were keenly felt by the ruling classes across Europe and this contributed to a general Economic downturn. The war also contributed to an increase in food prices and there were social changes and a decree of paternalism as a result of agrarian and industrial revolution. Poor harvests, trade depressions and a decline in the cottage industry as well as enclosure saw the parish’s responding as changes were needed in order to reduce the problems for the poor.
A considerable degree of variation across the country and a number of different schemes was set up. The county of Berkshire was one of the most affected by enclosure and was on the fringe of the textile industry in the South-West. In April 1795, following a poor harvest and hungry winter, the Berkshire magistrates decided to hold a meeting at Speenhamland to discuss how they would respond to this situation. It was attended by magistrates and clergymen and they passed a resolution as they saw action was needed. There motives were a mixture of altruism and self-interest. They agreed to subsidise low wages with an allowance which was based on how many children labourers had and the price of bread. There was variation as each parish began to adopt its own practise of dealing with the poor, for example some just paid a set rate, and others only paid if there were four children in the family.
This system of supplementary wages from parish funds was soon adopted into a modified form in other countries. Under the “roundsman system” the able bodied unemployed were sent round parish from one farm to another until someone was willing to take them on for a wage subsidised by the parish.
Under the “Labour rate system” a price was put on a labourers work and the ratepayers could choose between paying a labourer and paying the rate. Labourers were sent around to ratepayers who employed whoever they wished but this was not a common system.
There were two critiscms about the system and how efficient and effective the Speenhamland was. During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, George Canning MP, said the system saved the state from experiencing rioting and revolution, however in the post years after 1815, there were riots happening.
It was criticised by ratepayers for being ruinously expensive and Thomas Malthus criticised it as it encouraged farm labourers to have large families. It also encouraged employers to lower wages. The followers of Jeremy Bentham argued the system was “untidy, inefficient, and liable to discourage labourers from working hard.” Moreover, it was believe that indiscriminate relief demoralised the recipients of it.
The Select Vestries act was passed in 1818 which saw a plural voting system in a parish vestry set up along with the act to amend the law for the relief of the poor. At this time, parishes were trying to deal with some of the worst effects of poverty in their areas, however this did not stop the old system from coming under attack.
From the 1790’s onwards some of the most prominent writers, commentators and intellectuals were expressing their opinions on the poor law system and what should be done. The Utilitarian’s were the most influential on the Whig Government of the time, so it was not just the burden on the ratepayers in the framing of the Poor Law.
A key influence on the Government was Jeremy Bentham who was a philosopher and writer who created the doctrine of ‘utilitarianism.” Bentham’s secretary was Edwin Chadwick, a major force being the 1832 enquiry into the poor laws. The Whigs listened to Bentham’s ideas that were published in 1798 and said that entire responsibility should be given to the poor. He had ideas of industry houses accommodating half million people but only those who enter the house get poor relief. Outdoor relief should be abolished and the life in industry houses would be hard, disciplined, long hours and have a strict supervision. Bentham wanted a young and disciplined permanent population but he was virtually making them slave prisoners.
Another key influence was Thomas Malthus, a parson and an economic writer. In his ‘essay on population’ in 1976, he developed his pessimistic theory that the expansion of population would outstrip the available food supply, therefore famine and disaster are sure to follow. Malthus blamed the Poor Laws for the population increase and said that allowances and relief was needed.
David Ricardo was influenced by Malthus and the Scottish economist Adam Smith and had ideas on the economy and taxation. He also feared about population and believed in a ‘free market’ but believed that the parish rate would impoverish the population as a whole and it would encourage dependency, idleness and feckleness.
The pioneer sociologist Robert Owen blamed the economic system itself for creating poverty. He believed that settling labourers in cooperative communities to share benefits was the solution to the problem of unemployment, but his ideas were rejected inside and outside Parliament.
Thomas Paine, a radical writer had a much more sympathetic attitude to the poor and criticised the Poor Laws as well as urging for reforms. In order to finance his reforms, he demanded the replacement of poor rates by a land tax designed to hit rich landowners. His said the ‘able bodied unemployed would have to go to some form of workhouse if they wanted relief. Most of his ideas were rejected, but the Workhouse concept was accepted.
There were also significant outbreaks of violence in the 1820’s, especially in the industries of Britain. There were also ‘swing riots’ which refers to the series of agricultural labourers disturbances which broke out in Kent during Summer 1830 and rapidly spread through the rural areas of Southern and Eastern England, continuing until 1831. These protests were a reaction to unrest and when the Poor Law Act was framed, this series of protests was always on the commissioners minds. The Whigs were reformers and wanted to make the system more efficient to prevent unrest.
The population in 1832 was about 13 million and it is estimated that there were one and a half million paupers and there was a fear of what affect these could have on society. The old system was branded out of date and wasteful, which were resulting in widespread agricultural disturbances, swing riots and the fear that unrest would turn to revolution. The Whig Government increasingly felt that the rural poor were getting out of hand, hence, there was a combination of social, economic and political motives as to why a change was needed.
A long term concern had been the increasing cost of poor relief. In the years after the end of the Napoleonic, there was a marked increase in the cost of poor relief from about £2 million in 1784 to roughly £7 million in 1832. This is certainly crucial in explaining why the Whigs began to look at the system. The population increase was a reason for this, another being that land was being enclosed which was accelerating. This lead to the poor being pushed onto the parish for relief. At the end of the Napoleonic wars, approximately 250,000 servicemen were demobilised leading to the saturation of the Labour market and increasing unemployment. This was exacerbated by high corn prices that were kept artificially high by the corn laws of 1815.
The burden of this cost fell to the ratepayers in the parish and the rising cost was a key factor in the calls for it to be reformed as the ratepayers were the voters and put pressure on the Government for change. During the war there had been a general acceptance that high rates should be paid, however after the poor rate did not fall and people increasingly questioned the current provision for the poor. This cost rose from £5.7 million in 1815 to £7 million in 1831.
It was seen as important to reduce the cost of the Poor Law. The ratepayers paid the poor rate and increasingly resented it. In addition many of the ratepayers were the newly enfranchised middle-classes, and the Whigs were keep to keep them on board, therefore the aim of reducing the burden on ratepayers must be important in the framing of the 1834 Poor Law.
Some of the highest costs of providing poor relief were in the agricultural countries of England. Many ratepayers were prepared to pay a price if it prevented disorder and kept social stability, however the ratepayers should not have this burden and the system should be reformed. Ratepayers were filling out the columns of newspapers with letters complaining about the burden and demanding that something be done about it. Edwin Chadwick backed the ratepayer’s complaints that too much money was being spent on poor relief. The expenditure of poor relief was increasing, in 1784 it was estimated at £2 million and doubled by 1803 but by 1813 stood at £6.5 million which shows a dramatic rise. The highest wheat prices went up to 126s when the Corn Laws price on corn was 88s. Wages also decreased from 19s in 1810 to 5s in 1803. Although cost was crucial in explaining why the poor law was changed the system was not working or giving good value for money.
It was believed that the system of outdoor relief given by the parishes to top up wages etc was leading to a poor attitude amongst the poor. It was believed to encourage laziness. Another criticism was that the system encouraged unscrupulous farmers and they kept wages artificially low.
Ratepayers continued to press for fundamental reform as they saw the Select Vestries produce their own forms of corruption.
As society and economy changed, individual parishes needed to adopt to the growing problem of the poor. Individual responses had crept in leading to an incoherent system throughout the country therefore there was a lack of uniformity within the system and regional variations. There was also the corruption of local poor law administrators as the parishes themselves levied their own rate and supervised the spending of money, with the only check on this coming from the ratepayers.
It was because of all these economic, political and social factors along with the views of people resulting in the establishment of a commission in 1832 to investigate the system and make recommendations. Key figures at this time were Edwin Chadwick and Nassau Senior, a keen advocate of laissez-faire economics. The commission visited over 3,000 parishes and sent out questionnaires. There was an argument that they were merely trying to find evidence to support the recommendations they had decided on. Some believed that it represented a victory of the newly enfranchised middle classes.
The Poor Law Amendment act of 1834 was extremely similar to what the report recommended. It was obvious to see that the Whigs wanted a cost efficient system and were seduced by Utilitarian ideas. A central authority was set up to supervise and regulate the administration of the Poor Law. Parishes would be grouped together to form Poor Law unions in order 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 labourer. Outdoor relief was abolished for the able-bodied poor. The 1834 report was widely read with over 15000 copies being published and Chadwick said “the recommendations are like a ‘cold bath’- unpleasant in contemplation but invigorating in its effects. The act received wide support in Parliament and the system was very low cost.
My final conclusion is that it was very important in reducing the burden on the ratepayers in the framing of the 1834 Poor Law, however there were many other causes like failings in the system that led to changes. The economy and society of Britain was developing therefore a new system was bought about to suit the needs. The riots as well as the commentators who had a lot to say about the old poor law all contributed to the changes belled. The system needed modifying as systems, for example the “Speenhamland system” only caused more problems which were not improving. The ratepayers were extremely important, as they recognised the many corruptions within the system.
