Although the 1834 Amendment Act was the most significant development in the history of poverty and welfare in the nineteenth century the attitudes towards the poor had changed. The middle classes now viewed the poverty as the individual’s responsibility and that replaced the old idea that the rich had some responsibility for the poor. After the Act was passed, people’s perceptions of the poor tightened. Life became harder for people in poverty with the higher classes having Draconian attitudes to the poor. The New Poor Law was viewed as a triumph by the middle class. They were able to maintain power due to status (Routledge, 1991).
In 1846 an investigation into allegations of abuse at the Andover workhouse was conducted. The findings were appalling. Paupers had been so underfed that they had started to eat the marrow and rotting meat on the bones they had been set to crush. The workhouse master was forced to resign although he was given no other punishment. The Andover board of Guardians and the Poor Law Commission were condemned for allowing the situation to go unchecked. Nevertheless the report was largely publicised and the revelations lead to the demise of the commission itself.
In 1847 Parliament decided it was time to replace the commission, mainly due to the Andover scandal. The commission was replaced by the Poor Law Board. This was further replaced by the local government board in 1871.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, the poor were viewed as, lazy and drunken. Extravagance was seen to be the cause of hardship. It was argued that anyone could help themselves out of poverty by adopting the self-help values. It was also argued that thrift and sobriety would lead to prosperity and respectability. In the second half of the century new ideas and attitudes started to challenge the old assumptions. It started to emerge that attitudes from people such as writers, journalists, government officials and social investigators were changing towards the poor being responsible for their poverty, stating the majority of the poor had found themselves trapped in circumstances out of their control for example, unemployment, irregular work, low wages, sickness or death. If individuals were indeed victims of social and economic circumstances beyond their control then should not a larger power step in to protect them from the consequences? Despite the attempts of philanthropists and friendly societies it became clear that only the state was powerful enough to take on this role. (Murray, 1999)
Victorian Philanthropy played a large part in the reform of the welfare state. Families such as the Rowntree’s and Cadbury’s were major influences over the welfare state we have today.
In the 19th century the Cadbury family were members of the Society of Friends or Quakers, one of the many non-conformist groups developed in the 17th century in protest against the formalism of the Established church. Quakers held strong beliefs and ideals which carried into ‘campaigns for justice, equality and social reform, putting an end to poverty and deprivation’. The idea of the Cadbury family was to treat their workers well. In this respect workers at the Cadbury factory in Birmingham were given good pay, good working hours and comfortable working conditions. When the worker became too old to work they were given a wage to live on. As production grew and with no shortage of workers, the Cadbury family relocated to another factory in nearby Bournville. It was here that George Cadbury set to work on a community of houses for his workers. This became known as Bournville village and each home had a garden and the village consisted of all necessary amenities. George Cadbury hoped this attitude to workers would provide a basis that the government would use as a model.()
Another Quaker family was that of Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree, the third child of Joseph Rowntree and Emma Seebohm. Benjamin like his father believed it was his duty to help the poor and disadvantaged.
In 1860 Joseph Rowntree had carried out two major surveys into poverty in Britain. Inspired by his fathers work and the study by Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London (1889), Benjamin decided to carry out his own investigations into poverty in York. Rowntree spent two years on his project and the result of his study, Poverty, A Study of Town Life was published in 1901.
Rowntree’s study provided a wealth of statistical data on wages, hours of work, nutritional needs, food consumed, health and housing. The book illustrated the failings of the capitalist system and argued that new measures were needed to overcome the problems of old age, unemployment and ill-health.
Rowntree, a strong supporter of the Liberal Party, hoped that the conclusions that he had drawn from his study would be adopted as party policy. David Lloyd George, President of the Board of Trade, met Rowntree in 1907 and they became friends. The following year Lloyd George became Chancellor of the Exchequer and introduced a series of reforms influenced by Rowntree, including the Old Age Pensions Act (1908) this act was non contributory until (1911) when it became contributory and the National Insurance Act (1911). (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk)
With these reforms came another change in attitude. The poor were now claiming benefits that were available to them amongst others, no longer the laissez-faire attitude, and the poor were being viewed as deserving and hard working. Another Act was that of the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act (1925) after the war many husbands did not return and the workhouse was no longer an option for such a large proportion of society that were now widowed.
Following the Rowntree report another big player in the reform of Social Policy was Beveridge. Beveridge used Rowntrees report as a guide and produced his report. The Five Giants- The Problems in Society. The labour government based their reforms on this report.
Beveridge identified five giant problems, these were:
Want - Poverty
Disease - Health Care
Squalor - Housing
Ignorance - Education
Idleness - Work
(www.bbc.co.uk)
Beveridges report led on to a commitment by the Labour Government to “Provide For People Who Can’t Provide For Themselves”. This statement is a huge change in attitude from the days of the Poor Law, where ‘the Poor were responsible for themselves and their poverty’.
Legislation arising from this report was:
National Health Service
Education Act
New Towns and Houses
More people to receive sickness and unemployment benefit (1946)
Everyone can get relief (1948)
Widows and Maternity benefit
Retirement Pension at 65 yrs for men and 60 for women
Family allowance – Paid to the mother
Industrial Injuries – paid at higher rate than sickness.
To summarise these findings the simplest answer would be: The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Bibliography
Murray, 1999
Blaug,1963
Routledge, 1991
, 2005
, 2005
, 2005
