Do you agree with the view that the 1934 Poor Law Amendment Act applied sound principles to serious problems?
Do you agree with the view that the 1934 Poor Law Amendment Act applied ‘sound principles’ to serious problems? (40)
The 1934 Poor Law Amendment Act (PLAA) applied only partly sound principles to tackle the serious problems around at the time in Britain. Source 13 shows statistics on the cost of Poor Relief and suggests that the PLAA only fixed the serious problems to a certain extent, since although cost goes down in 1934, it does go back up in 1844, which maybe down to Outdoor Relief being discouraged not banned. Source 14, in line with the question, completely agrees with the statement as it suggests that ‘sound principles’ were adopted and very administered effectively. Source 15, on the other hand, suggests that the PLAA did not apply ‘sound principles’ to serious problems and was rather a ‘ghastly mistake’. Therefore the 1934 PLAA only partly solved all the serious problems in Britain at the time.
Source 13 states that in 1834, the average expenditure went down to £4,946,000 compared to the previous years which had an average expenditure per year of £6,758,000. Likewise, the cost per head of population goes down by more than three shillings once the PLAA is introduced. This suggests that the introduction of the PLAA has brought about ‘sound principles’, as it was able to reduce cost of Poor Relief substantially, hence tackling a serious problem. During the years after the Napoleonic Wars with France, as shown in the table during 1814 to 1818, the cost of poor relief grew considerably since people were claiming relief more than ever due to post-war distress. However, in the years after, where it would be expected that Britain had recovered and the cost of Poor Relief would have decreased to an acceptable amount, it continued to roam around the same mark, thus suggesting that Britain was in crisis in terms of cost of Poor Relief. However once the PLAA is introduced in 1934, the cost of Poor Relief reduces significantly, hence again suggesting that the PLAA did apply ‘sound principles’. However after 1844, the cost of Poor Relief rises with average expenditure rising to £5,290,000 and cost per head also increasing to 6s 2d. This suggests that the PLAA was not able to apply ‘sound principles’ that would have been able to sustain it and keep the cost of Poor Relief down to a minimum hence not being able to continue tackling serious problems. This may have been mainly because of Outdoor Relief, which was discouraged by the PLAA, not banned. This would have had a tragic effect on the cost of Poor Relief as paupers would have been reluctant to enter workhouses due to disturbing rumours, such as bread poisoning, and would have continued to claim outdoor relief, thus suggesting that the PLAA did not apply ‘sound principles’ to serious problems. Due to Source 13 displaying facts only, its sole purpose is not to influence readers but just to display the progress of the PLAA regarding cost of Poor Relief, which we can go onto interpret. Therefore this makes the source reliable and useful as we can make a clear judgement on the PLAA without being manipulated by purposes of the author. Also, the data shown in Source 13 was compiled and published in 1962, enough time after the PLAA was introduced to gather useful information which is accurate and correct, thus again making Source 13 useful to us.