How important was utilitarianism as a cause of the Whig reform of the 1830's?

The terrible conditions in Britain in the 1830’s after parliamentary reform prompted the idea that further reform was needed. Industrialisation meant that industry was replacing agriculture leading to the growth of towns and cities. But with this expansion came a range of social problems such as overcrowding, poor health, poverty, terrible working conditions and a lack of educational opportunities. These problems were highlighted by various reform groups, most prominently the Benthamites (who published reports on the poor law, public health, the police and town governments) but also the Humanitarians (who wanted an improvement in the living and working conditions of the working class), the Evangelicals (who campaigned for the religious reform of the morals and manners of society) and the enlightened factory owners (who campaigned for socialist action to create better working condition in factories). This diverse campaign for further reform was eventually pushed through by the key ministers in the Whig government who recognised the strength of public opinion. This lead to the most extensive and concentrated burst of reforming legislation ever introduced by a British Government.

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was introduced in 1834 to deal with the growing number of poor. The original 1601 Poor Law Act in the 18th century meant it had become common for relief to be given to all types of poor only inside the parish workhouse. From the late 18th century onwards, the system was unable to cope with the vastly increasing numbers of poor especially during periods of unemployment and low wages. The dominant view was that the old Poor Law, based on ad-hoc schemes of parochial relief, exacerbated the very problems it was designed to alleviate. Alarmed at the discontent in shires and towns, the Government launched a commission which proved according to Edwin Chadwick (the most influential member of the commission and a fanatical Benthamite) that “every penny bestowed…was a bounty to indolence and vice”, stating that able bodied poor were being overprovided for at the Parishes expense, wasting money. His recommendations became the Poor Law Act  of 1834 which stated that outdoor relief would no longer be provided for the able bodied poor, Parishes would group together to make things more ‘efficient’ and work houses would be made unattractive to encourage self help, so the poor would only use them as a last resort.

 The results of the Poor Law Amendment Act were a success in the narrow sense and did follow Benthamite principles because the system had become more efficient (reducing expenditure by £2.5 million). The Benthamites saw it as an ideal reform. Although the influence of utilitarianism was evidenced through the strong role of the government in relation to this act, its success and therefore its importance was compromised by the effect of the act as the ‘greatest happiness’ of the ‘greatest number’ (made up of the working and lower class) was not being achieved as these two groups in society suffered hardships as a consequence of it and were certainly not ‘happy’. This was highlighted by the Humanitarians who thought the act to be cruel and cold-blooded, ignoring the cause of poverty and shifting the problem to be the fault of the pauper.

Despite this, the results of this act show the importance/significance of the Benthamite influence. Therefore Utilitarianism was by far the most important influence on this act (making it more “efficient”) in relation to other schools of thought which only tended to criticise the new act. However its relative importance could be questionable as the passing of the act was helped by the demonstrations termed the Swing riots between 1830 and 1831 which frightened the government into action.

In addition to the laws relating to the problem of pauperism Utilitarianism influenced a drive for more reforms as the Benthamite’s wished to see efficient administration in all fields of activity. Despite this desire continuously falling on deaf ears, as unlike Grey, the new Prime Minister Melbourne of 1835 did not provide any reforming drive, their influence was felt in another measure, the reform of urban local government in the form of the Municipal Corporations act of 1835, which replaced squires and magistrates with bureaucrats who served elected councils. Before this reform there had been no local governments but unevenly formed districts governed by the whim of parish officials. With the Municipal Corporations Act the Benthamite idea that legislators should be subject to the punishment of dismissal was brought to life.

However, the legislation did have several failings. The Act did not compel the new councils to make social improvements. Consequently, by 1848 only twenty-nine boroughs had taken any action in terms of public health. In 1848 there were still sixty-two large towns without councils. The Act mainly benefited the middle classes as few working men were wealthy enough to be ratepayers. I believe these results compromise the degree to which the act was utilitarian as it did not ensure the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number’. However many historians believe that the municipal cooperation act was a logical outcome of reform in 1832 echoing its spirit of utilitarianism by creating a more uniform and ‘efficient’ pattern of electoral qualifications and removing ancient ,‘useless’ and ‘inefficient’ traditions.