The administration of the Poor relief and contracts for Poor Law work for supplying food, were awarded to local tradesmen rather than put to open tender. Overseers were the ones who would determine who was ‘deserving’ and who was ‘undeserving’. But concerned ratepayers suggested that these two sections were one way in which vested interests were exploiting the system. This led to criticisms towards these as it was believed that tradesmen would give out more food than what was appointed to each person, therefore the government cost would be higher and the overseers would tend to consider ‘undeserving’ people ‘deserving’ if he knew them or had some sort of contact with them. As a result the parishes set up select vestries in 1827, and were an attempt to end the corruption and abuse that there was before and were based on small committees which were responsible for poor law administration.
The Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815) proved how vulnerable the Poor Law was to changes in the economy and society. With the war bread prices increased as cheap grain could no longer be imported due to the continental blockade. This meant that farmers could increase their bread prices as they had the monopoly for grain. As bread was part of the staple diet of the poor, more poor people had to ask for relief as they could no longer deal with the increased price of bread. Many believed that when the war ended the situation would improve, but instead it worsened. As the continental blockade had ended together with Napoleon, cheap grain could be imported and therefore the price on bread lowered again. As a result, the farmers who initially were making a large profit on the bread they produced were loosing out as they had to reduce their prices in order to compete with the cheapness of the foreign grain.
As farmers had to pay increasing poor rates, war taxes and had less income than during the war, they had to reduce the wages which they gave to their labourers. This led to another increase in the cost of relief as labourers were no longer earning what they used to in conditions of war. Many farmers were bankrupt and the increase in unemployment was simultaneous to that of poor relief. The war was an obvious catalyst to end the Poor Law, but the Tories could not abolish the system at a time when distress was at its height, society seemed too many to be unstable and was in the process of recovery after over 20 years of war. The years between 1815 and 1819 are considered to be the worst for the government, as more people were claiming relief especially soldiers that returned from war and radical movements were motivating people to fight for their rights.
The situation that the government faced with the Poor Law was made worse by the radical movements at the time. A perfect example of the rural unrest that existed during the period was the Swing Riots that were carried out by rural workers, protesting against threshing machines as they were taking over their jobs. The implementation of new machinery consequently made unemployment as well as poor relief numbers increase. At the time of the swing riots and agricultural disturbances, France was once again suffering political chaos and the fear of revolution was once again real. The demand for reform became increasingly based on social and political as well as economic motives. D.G. Wright suggests that “ingredients for revolution were present” as there was economic distress, unrest amongst industrial and agricultural workers and signs of serious division among the ruling classes.
The Whig government set up the Royal Commission in 1832 to inquire into the system and seemed to have abolished the ‘laissez faire’ approach as they realised that their intervention was necessary. Its chairman was Blomfield, Bishop of London and one of the Assistant Commissioners was Edwin Chadwick, who had been Bentham’s secretary. The Royal Commissioners were strong Benthamites and they believed in efficiency and utilitarianism. In 1834 their report was published and the proposals aimed to deter people from seeking relief. Workers who did seek relief would have paid a living wage by employers so this meant that the proposals encouraged workers’ self-reliance and independence. Chadwick and his colleagues described the allowance system as a waste of ratepayers’ money. There would be an expansion of the workhouse system for those unable to help themselves. Conditions in the ‘Bastilles’ would be so unattractive that the poor would have to help themselves rather than enter a workhouse. This was known as the principle of ‘less eligibility’. Parishes would now be grouped into Poor Law Unions to create larger units, the intervention being that each of the individual categories of poor (able-bodied, impotent and idle) would be given their on individual workhouse.
The main purpose of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was to completely reform the system of poor relief in England and Wales, making it cost effective and efficient. But different views and criticisms go against this and believe that it had other motives behind it. For example the Marxist perspective maintains that the Act was “nothing more than a naked class exploitation by the newly enfranchised middle classes.” Therefore, by holding down the poor rate by making harsh and unacceptable workhouses, the poor were forced to work for lower wages. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was the most significant development in the history of poverty and welfare in the nineteenth century, but on the other hand it was hated by the poor who had to live with the threat of the workhouse. From then on workers were forced to take responsibility for their own economic situation and had to take employment at any wage. Therefore workers had to find alternative ways of coping with poverty because the State had withdrawn its traditional support.
