Aiming to reduce the dependency on the state, due to government economic intervention was another key aspect to the Royal Commission’s report. Under the previous system, local authorities usually ‘made up’ labourers’ wages to subsistence level; thus, farmers paid low wages, safe in the knowledge that their labourers would still get enough money to survive. Chadwick and Senior wanted to change this scenario as it conflicted with Smith’s ideas on laissez-faire and non-intervention. They proposed the establishment of workhouses with poor conditions for inhabitants, to reduce dependency on the state – this was the concept of less eligibility.
Commissioners also argued that outdoor relief “was a bounty on indolence and vice”, as the ‘able bodied poor’ had no incentive to improve their position. Their report even went as far as to claim that the Speenhamland system was the cause of much of the rural pauperism, following Malthus’ belief that current system encouraged a ‘spirit of ‘dependence’. In line with the Commission’s opinion, the new act recommended a reduction in outdoor relief to erode this ‘sprit of dependence’.
The final act embodied the Commissions’ recommendations; with the creation of a central board, the establishment of workhouses in poor law unions to reduce costs, and a proposal to reduce outdoor relief. And, although ‘less eligibility’ was never mentioned in the act, the principle was certainly evident. The act owed much to Chadwick’s intervention, and he believed it to be one of “the first great pieces of legislation built upon scientific or economic principles”. One historian writes “the passage of the poor law amendment act is perhaps the earliest example of the tyranny of the expert”. Thus, it is clear to see that the Royal Commission had significant influence on the terms of the act – virtually all of its recommendations were implemented and it passed smoothly through parliament.
However, the ‘Captain Swing’ riots at the time also provided a strong influence on the law. The low labourers’ wages from farmers, encouraged under the old poor law system, triggered a series of violent outbreaks in 1830 and 1831. The seriousness of the disturbances undermined rural property owners’ confidence in the Poor Law to act as a guarantor of social order, and even revolution seemed possible. The gentry and farmers wanted an overhaul of the system, because the riots were seen as a breakdown in the traditional bond of paternalism between the labourers and the local gentry. A harsher attitude towards the poor was demanded, and, given the revolutionary spirit of the time in mainland Europe, many felt that the poor masses needed to be subdued. Neville claims that “the economic reason which was given as propaganda to the British public was almost a smoke screen for the government’s motivation leading to the Poor Law Amendment Act”. The riots’ influence is seen in the act through the establishment of the workhouses, where conditions were deliberately poor to subdue the occupants, maintaining law and order.
Several historians have claimed that leading Whigs at the time, including Russell, Morpeth and Howick, wanted to drive a much needed social and moral regeneration, and Mandler highlights the role of a new generation of Whigs helping to reinvigorate old ideas. He argues that the party had clever and fresh ideas regarding social reform in the 1830s and that they were committed to a programme which would demonstrate the “practical usefulness and responsiveness of the aristocratic state to popular pressure”. The Whigs’ desire to respond to popular pressure is shown in the act - making the workhouse conditions deliberately bad in order to please those who were demanding a harsher approach to relief claimants.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Whigs were simply looking for an inspiration to lead their reform programme. For example, this had occurred previously, with the outside influence of Althorp on the 1833 Factory Act. It could be said that the Whigs’ operated the most influence over the New Poor Law bill, and that the Royal Commission was merely a front for the Whigs’ determination to change the framework of poor relief. The most obvious point to support this argument is that the Whigs appointed utilitarian thinkers such as Senior to the Royal Commission, when they could have chosen a wide variety of other thinkers – evangelicals for example.
The Whigs acted comprehensively upon the Commission’s final recommendations, whereas, when the Tories had been in power earlier that century, they had ignored the recommendations of two Royal Commissions. The possibility of a rejection of their recommendations would have forced the Commission to suggest proposals with which the Whigs would clearly agree. Thus, it is fair to say that the Whigs operated a strong degree of influence over the act’s terms.
To conclude, although the threat of potential revolution and the Whigs’ own motives explain a few of the points in the Poor Law Amendment Act, the Royal Commission certainly was the greatest influence on its terms.
The Swing Riots assured many that the poor needed to be subdued if order was to be maintained. The apparent harshness and lack of humanity in the act with regards to the poor’s living conditions supports the idea that the Swing Riots had a degree of influence over the terms of the new law.
It could be said that the Whigs wanted reform but they were unsure of the exact path to take – the simply wanted to reduce the overall cost, and instead relied on the Commission’s recommendations to build the substance of their reform. Therefore it would be wrong to claim that the Whigs were the most important influence on the terms of the act.
In contrast, the Royal Commission’s proposals were virtually transported into the legislation, with the exception of the abolition of outdoor relief – the bill called for its reduction, instead of its abolition. In broad terms, the utilitarian principles so evident on the Commission in the likes of Chadwick and Senior were transferred to the terms of the act.
Whilst the swing riots and the Whigs were influences in their own right, their main influence was through the Royal Commission - the commissioners would have been aware of the violent outbreaks and the Whigs’ concerns about the cost of the Poor Law, and would have taken these issues into account when making recommendations. The new act dealt with the problems of spiralling costs and a need for mass repression by prescribing the ‘less eligible’ workhouse. This solution coincided with the Commission’s utilitarian principles, and so ultimately, because the act so accurately reflects the Royal Commission’s recommendations, it is surely the most important influence.