“… 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 tested to see whether they produced “the greatest happiness for the greater number” and should be reformed if they failed to pass this test of utility” (Murray, 1999, p. 18)
advocated stronger control by the central government over the administration of the Poor Laws. He also proposed that:
“… give entire responsibility for the poor to a body to be known as the National Charity Organisation. This was to be a profit-making private company initially financed by a government subsidy… poor relief would only be given to those who entered the house: support for people living in their own homes (known as outdoor relief) would be abolished. Life within an industry house would be deliberately hard, with strict supervision and discipline, long working hours and a meagre diet” (Murray, 1999, p. 19).
On the other hand, Robert Owen put the blame of poverty in the economic system. He believed in the principles of co-operation: in order to resolve the problem of unemployment the government should settle workers in new co-operatives communities, where they would share all benefits form their work without being exploit by the landowner or factory owner. He had established a community in Glasgow based on these principles and it worked (Murray, 1999, p. 21).
Due to an increased criticism towards the Poor Laws, the government appointed a Royal Commission to examine how they worked.
“The Commission was very concerned with the cost of the existing schemes for relief, which were felt to be too high, and were rising. It was looking for a system that would be effective, but that, would, above all, keep costs down” (Evers, 2003, p. 145).
A Report came out with some important recommendations that were in accordance with the views of Bentham and Malthus (Digby, 1982, p. 12). The main Recommendations were, firstly there should be only one system of poor relief for the whole country; secondly outdoor relief should be abolished; thirdly parishes should join together to form Unions; fourthly relief should only be given if the Poor was prepared to enter the workhouse (the workhouse-test); and fifthly the conditions in the workhouse should be worse than those for the poorest paid labourer living outside the workhouse (the principle of less-eligibility) (Murray, 1999, p. 26).
The recommendations from the Report were incorporated in the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act and its main aims were: to abolish the outdoor relief and
“● to cut the cost of poor relief;
● to reduce the poor rates;
● to transfer control of poor relief into the hands of the rate-payers;
● to transfer responsibility from individual parishes with unpaid overseers to the Unions with elected Boards of Guardians, and some central control from London” ( Evers, 2003, p. 157).
Historians disagree about the significance of the Act.
“Some believe that it represented the victory of the newly enfranchised middle classes, whilst an alternative view is that the Act was an attempt to consolidate the traditional power of the rural landowning classes. Either way, there is no doubt that the New Poor Law and the workhouse system that went with it were hated by the poor themselves throughout the nineteenth century and indeed into the twentieth century” (Murray, 1999, p. 16).
Quick progress was made in the south of England between 1834 and 1836, where, in addition to the implementation of the Act the local economy began to improve. There was an improvement in the harvest and a growth of productivity in agriculture after 1836. There was also more employment opportunities provoked by the “the railways mania” that occurred in that decade (Jenkins, 2002, p. 150).
However, the Poor Law Commission faced several problems in enforcing the new Law. One of those problems was that the “workhouse-test” wasn’t enforced across the whole country. In some areas where unemployment was sporadic/seasonal and short-term, as in the textile-manufacturing areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire, it was impossible to provide relief in the workhouses for hundreds of people and also because it was a short-term situation, outdoor relief had to continue and was seen as the only solution to the problem (Evers, 2003, p. 157). Another problem was the principle of “less-eligibility” because it was really difficult to make the living conditions in the workhouse harder than those in which many poor lived. Usually, even being harsh they were better than in the slums where they lived. For the majority of the population at the workhouses the hardest thing was to be separated from their family and the limitations of their independence. Another problem was that some parishes didn’t want to group together to form Unions. They didn’t believe in the new system. They believed that building new workhouses would be more expensive than continuing the outdoor relief system that they had. However, by 1840 most of the 14.000 parishes were grouped in 600 Unions and 350 new workhouses were built, but 800 parishes remained outside the new system (Murray,
1999, p. 35). Another problem was that although the amount spent in outdoor relief had decreased the cost of building new workhouses made increase the poor-rates in many areas which made many ratepayers unhappy.
In 1844 the Commission applied a general Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order as an “attempt” to control the outdoor relief to the able-bodied, in some Unions. But that didn’t work because orders could be interpreted in a flexible way and the guardians could always make exceptions.
Due to the lack of consistency throughout the whole country regarding the outdoor relief problem, the Commission decided to issue the Labour Test Order (1842),
“These orders stated that if outdoor relief were to be given, it could only be in return for some form of parish work such as stone breaking… such relief should be paid at least partly in the form of food or fuel.” (Murray, 1999, p. 35/6)
Nevertheless, many Unions continued to ignore the Orders claiming that was impossible to enforce them due to the extent of poverty in their areas, forcing the Commission to withdraw the previous two Orders and leading to:
“Following this, the majority of Unions were allowed to replace the workhouse by outdoor labour as the condition of relief. By 1871 only 1 in 6 Unions was operating under the 1844 Order which banned outdoor relief to the able-bodied” (Murray, 1999, p. 36)
As a result, one of the most important aims of the New Law was proved to be impossible to implement.
The persistent effort to reduce outdoor relief in the late 19th century was helped by the growing number of charities organisations, such as Dr. Barnado, Octavia Still, Salvation Army, etc. They targeted their help towards the “deserving poor”, leaving the “undeserving poor” to be handled by the Poor Law Authorities. (Murray, 1999, p. 50). This
alliance brought the desired result: by 1900 the number of people receiving outdoor relief had reduced significantly.
“Although the workhouse population had risen by the turn of the century, the proportion of paupers in the total population had declined from 4.7% in the 1860s to around 2.5% in 1900.” (Murray, 1999, p. 50).
In conclusion, it can be suggest that the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act wasn’t successful because its principles were never fully implemented: the outdoor relief wasn’t abolished; the “workhouse- test” wasn’t enforced nationwide; the principle of “less-eligibility” didn’t work, and, above all, the aim to cut the cost of poor relief (indoor and outdoor) wasn’t achieved.
The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was seen by most of the working class as an instrument by which, the state punished people who were poor, even though it wasn’t their fault (Evers, 2003, p. 157). The Act only dealt with the effects of poverty but didn’t care enough about the causes of it.
Nevertheless, the 1834 Act was seen by historians as
“… the most significant development in the history of poverty and welfare in the 19th century and that it set the agenda for the debate on poverty for the next century” (Murray, 1999, p. 27).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Digby, A., (1982), “The Poor Law in Nineteenth-Century England”, London, Historical Association
Evers, C. and Welbourne D., (2003), “Britain 1783 – 1851: From Disaster to Triumph”, London, Hodder Education
Jenkins, J., (2002), “Victorian Social Life: British Social History 1815 – 1914”, London, John Murray, Ltd.
Murray, P. (1999), “Poverty and Welfare 1830 – 1914”, London, Hodder & Stoughton Educational