HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS THE 1834 POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT?

Authors Avatar

How successful was the 1834                                                                                        by Ester Moreira

Poor Law Amendment Act?

HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS THE 1834 POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT?

 

The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was essentially meant to aid the fight against pauperism and to assist the poor into work and hopefully lead them to be better citizens and no longer a burden to the state. In order to analyse how successful the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was we have to examine what was in practice before, why it was implemented and what changed after the Act.

Before the new Act the system of relief to the Poor that was in practice was the Poor Law Act of 1601, where the state (through the parishes) was responsible for those who were unable to support themselves: the sick, the elderly and the orphans – “the deserving poor” (because it wasn’t their fault). They would be taken care in Poorhouses. For the able-bodied – “the undeserving poor” (they could provide for themselves but they didn’t want to) or the unemployed, work would be provided, or they would receive cash or food (allowance), in order to help them. (Murray, 1999, p. 16). The money for the relief to the Poor was provided by rates (poor-rates), a local tax based on the value of the property.

Till 1834 the Old Poor Law suffered several modifications: the Laws of Settlement (1662), which protect a parish from being overwhelmed by the poor who didn’t belong to them (people could only ask for relief in the parish where they were born or lived for the previous 3 years); the Gilbert’s Act (1782), which allowed parishes to group together and form the Poor Law Authorities (a way of saving money: instead of a poorhouse for each parish, they could share a common one); the “Speenhamland System”, where an allowance was paid in order to “top-up” low wages. This allowance was based on the price of the bread and in the number of children in the family – it’s important to refer that this system wasn’t implemented nationwide. The outdoor relief to the Poor was dealt differently from

parish to parish and people could receive outdoor relief even if they were in the Poorhouses/workhouses.

By the end of the 18th century the system of poor relief was under increased pressure and criticism from rate-payers – because the poor-rates were increasing; from politicians – because the cost of the poor relief was very high (in 1830 it was 60% higher than it was in 1802); and also from academic thinkers (Murray, 1999, p. 15), such as Malthus who was very concerned about the growth of population. He argue that

Join now!

“… the allowance system encouraged laziness, drunkness and early marriages with their attendant large families” ( Jenkins, 2002, p. 136)

He also believed that if the Poor Laws were abolished this would lead to higher wages because without the poor-rates employers would be able to pay better wages. Without the Poor Laws families would be smaller because they would have no longer the incentive to have more children in order to receive more relief/help (Murray, 1999, p. 20).

Also, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the “father” of Utilitarianism:

“… the idea that all institutions should be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay