The New Poor Law free essay sample

This essay is looking to explain the aims of and the motivations behind the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, also the links to the Emancipation Act, Malthusian and Benthamite influence on the Act. The outcome on history will not change but just maybe a clearer understanding of the reasoning behind the changes. The first thing to look at is the amended Act itself presented by Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick the report took the view that people were poor and needy by either idleness or ignorance not by socioeconomic conditions, Outdoor relief for the able-bodied was to be abolished, this meant the only means of financial support for a family was to present themselves at the workhouse knowing it meant your family would be separated from each other and living in total squalor. The Bastardy clause meant that the mother had the right to relief for her child through the workhouse supposedly for them to make the father pay, this was an attempt at legal control of moral issues. The Parishes were grouped together into unions and workhouses to be established in each union, for example Cramlington was part of the Tynemouth union which went from Blyth to North Shields and Cramlington to Benton including everything in-between. The conditions in workhouses were to be made harsher than that of the lowest paid. This was the concept of ‘less eligibility’ or less attractiveness. Families were separated and lived in extremely poor conditions poor hygiene extremely poor food and received harsh treatment from governors. Poor Law Commissioners in London (the Poor Law Board) were Thomas Frankland Lewis, George Nicholls and John George Shaw Lefevre they were to supervise the scheme and maintain national standards. Which was an early attempt at national control on a local level, which could never truly work at that time. The Poor Law Amendment Act passed through Parliament with large majorities and very little opposition, The Times printed objections and Cobbett fought for the rights of relief for the poor. Chadwick had rushed the report through so some areas where not expanded on, as he had expected to take charge of the board and he knew what was meant to be done, but he only got the position of secretary to the board. The Cabinet had refused to force unions to build workhouses, Althorp, The Home Secretary said† The landed interests were looking for immediate relief and relief to be purchased through expenditure would be rejected at once†. From the start of the industrial evolution in England capitalist greed caused trouble. Technological advancements in farming caused unemployment in rural areas, poor harvests caused food shortages and price rises in everything but wages. In 1815 the war in France ends but that was not the end of troubles over the following nineteen years riots and revolutionary troubles followed such as Peterloo Massacre of 1819. There were Three revolutions in 1820 as well as the Cato street conspiracy. The Russian December revolt of 1825. a global cholera epidemic begins in India 1826. In 1830 the July revolution in France brought the abdication of Charles X and another revolt in Warsaw. 831 saw Polish independence, Belgian independence and Italian rebellions put down by the Austrians and the swing riots all of which worried the English Government fearing an all-out revolution, reforms with in government policy are seen as prudent. In 1829 Catholics were again allowed to hold public office in Britain and Sir Robert Peel created the Police force. H. L Beales 1931 summary of the Poor L aw after 1831 referred to it as genuine primary radical legislation or more accurately ‘social fascism’. The fault with pre 1834 Poor Law was the abled bodied paupers that refused to work. Parallels can be draw to 2010 Conservative views of unemployed and DLA recipients. The New Poor law was deemed a success because it meant the workhouses where funded nationally not by the Parish and after 20yrs poor law expenditures had dropped from 9 shillings per person in 1834 to 6 shillings per person. This was largely to do with the fact that those who would require assistance would go to great lengths including borrowing, charity, stealing and in some cases actually starving to avoid the workhouse. This is how much fear people had of the workhouse. The Whigs were the Liberals and in general the radicals of the time, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne was Home Secretary from 1830 and PM from 1834 and as Home Secretary he dealt with Trade union movements suppressing the Tolpuddle Martyrs as well as the Swing Riots which were viewed in differing ways some say he was extremely harsh like William Cobbett whom was charged with Seditious Libel after printing a paper called Rural War in his Political Register. Others with in the Whig Party disagree yet he managed to avoid Tory calls for military force, he used instead special constables he appointed a special commission to try at least a thousand of those arrested and ensured that justice was strictly adhered to only 19 were executed, the disturbances 1831-32 about reform where dealt with in similar form refusing to pass legislation against sedition. As Melbourne was an aristocrat his interests where in keeping the status Quo, He opposed the catholic emancipation, and it did not bring the peace they had expected. He initially opposed the reform act 1832, but reluctantly agreed that it would be necessary to stop the threat of revolution. Then again opposing the Repeal of the Corn Laws he argued the emancipation of neither the Catholics nor the reform bill improved conditions why would this. The depravity of the poor was in no small part the cause of the Government and the gentry. ver decades of reductions in their rights they had built a backup of labour for the expediency of the farmer at harvest and hay making and utilised them for road making, fencing and drainage issues Cobbett called it ’Scotch feelosofy’ the Hammonds ‘the spirit of the age’ gentry and capitalist both encouraged this and paid either via the speenhamland system of poor relief or by the feudal arrogance of the aristocracy towards payi ng the inferior labouring race. The Landowners and farmers began to regret the lost common lands and potatoes patches that allowed the poor to keep a cow geese etc allowing them to survive without going to the parish for aid, as the cost of poor rates had tripled by 1812. The bread winner wage theory meant a man working and being paid enough to provide for his whole family without his wife needing to work as we understand it but in 19th Century three very different and distinct variations in the first version it is seen as a uncommon privilege and obligation, the second as a normative reward for propriety and thirdly the bread winners wage was seen as a God given right. The first originated with the New Poor Law of 1834 which did not assume that all working men should be bread winners who could keep their wives at home as dependants. Inspired by Malthus poor law advocator developed an idea of breadwinner status as a rare privilege and an irksome obligation. Not a right of working men. They believe if you could not support a family you should not marry. And if a woman could not find a husband who earned enough she should support herself and her children by earning a wage. They aimed to deter working men from marrying by withdrawing state allowances for children and forcing entire families into the workhouse. Jeremy Bentham whom died in 1832 was a key figure in the reform period even though in his own words â€Å"in itself Government is one vast evil†¦ whenever, by evil thus produced, greater evil is excluded, the balance takes the nature, shape and name of good; and Government is justified in the production of it†. any of Bentham’s ideas and Ideologies were used and bastardised by the Government into what at the time was referred to as ‘Utilitarian Individualism’ which was the future of legislature and stood for many years under the umbrella of liberalism. Benthams fundamental doctrine is â€Å"the greatest happiness for the greatest number† Laissez-faire as government legislations were to protect the gentry and Capitalists not the workers and artisans who made up the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham’s idea s and influence in Government legislation can be seen all the way into twentieth Century Legislation. There was an increased hostility towards centralized power of Authority the local rights and customs were protected against the arrogant Government by aristocrat to commoner alike; conflicts contributed greatly to the radical tory strain which ran through from Cobbett to Oastler and peaked at the new poor Law of 1834, it is ironic that the main protagonists of the state were the middle class Utilitarian’s The Emancipation Act was largely due to Wilberforce and Bowdler through their Society for the Suppression of Vice and Encouragement of Religion started with a simple message to the poor the same message Burke gave in 1795 â€Å"Patience, labour, sobriety, frugality and religion†. The Poor Law Amendment Act can hardly be described as Malthusian when the only remnants are relevant as they are notable of the abolitionist. This essay concludes that the only motivation behind the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was GREED this will be expanded on. The Aim of the Act was to appease the gentry and landowners who wanted lower taxes and unfortunately it worked but for all the wrong reasons. Greed has always been a good political motivator, the 19th Century was a volatile time and causes of that were too many to mention them all Industrial Evolution changes employment needs as it creates machinery but also factories and towns, population boom encouraged by Capitalist and church providing them with more workers to exploit, war ends sailors and soldiers return to no jobs. The Government make slight reforms to appease the people take the fight out of enough to make trouble manageable. The great reform Act 1832 took a lot of fight out of the masses as they believed they had a government that would do what was best for the people.