Poor Law essay

Speaking about poor laws in the United Kingdom it would be essential to note that the attempt to regulate poverty in 1834 referred to as the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was not the first one among the other attempts. It goes without saying that the poverty is one of the very contradictory questions and it existed for centuries, the attempts to rid off in the majority did not succeed. This essay would examine the attempt dating back to 1834, was it successful or not and why it shan’t be used for contemporary realities. It goes without saying that this attempt was one of the most significant in the modern era.
Reasons, Subject and Matter of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834
The Poor Law (also referred to as the New Poor Law) is known for the fact that it completely declined the previous poor law dating back to the 1601. The reasoning for undertaking such a law was the increasing industrialization as a result the growth of cities, which attracted the new workers to the plants and factories. The after effect of the industrialization was the growth of poverty level which needed new solutions from the government in power. The Poor Law 1834 was the reply on the increasing poverty and is characterized by N. Gash (1967) as “the classic example of the fundamental Whig-Benthamite reforming legislation of the period”. The act was preceded by the report of Royal Commission which examined the current situation with the poverty, found the support within the parliamentary issues and the result was the New Poor Law, which is also “constituted a virtual administrative revolution: a central commission not under direct ministerial or parliamentary control” (Gash, 1967). It was aimed on establishing efficient local administrative units, prescribing the qualifications of local officials and supported many other ideas.
The law supposed to solve certain problems by less illegibility (it was supposed to make the position of the pauper ‘less illegible’ or less chosen than the position of the independent worker) and workhouse test (was not supposing any relief outside the workhouse)
The investigative process upheld before the establishment of the law made the officials consider that the countryside could not feed the increasing population. The New Poor Law was supposed to be “encouragement to illegitimacy and this would lead in turn to mass starvation” (Poynter 1960).
So called ‘iron law of wages’ was supposed to represent that the Poor Law was decreasing the independent workers’ wages. Accompanied with “roundsman system”, where the poor were attracted to work as the cheaper than the local workers were the Speenhamland system was expected to decrease the wages. Those who supported the project considered that they helping the independent workers making poor refuse from participating on the labor market.
Describing that times situation Gash (1967) noted that the Poor law was expected the Great expectations. The principles on which the commissioners were to act followed from the recommendations of an earlier report:
– the principle of “less eligibility” (workhouse conditions should be made less preferable than those of the lowest paid labourer)
– the prohibition of outdoor relief (relief outside the workhouse)
– the segregation of different classes of paupers (including the separation of married couples)
– the abolition of the “rate-in-aid” (grants to supplement low wages) (Gash 1967).
Despite the great expectation the law did not applied the mentioned ideas, especially in the industrial North. The good illustration would be statistical data, represented within the same research by Gash (1967): “In 1841, of the 1,300,000 persons who received relief, only 192,000 were in workhouses, the remaining 1,108,000 being assisted in their own homes. Of the total sum of £3,884,000 spent in poor relief from the rates, only £892,000 was expended in the workhouses, while nearly £3 millions were spent in outdoor relief. The figures for 1839 and 1840 show similar proportions” (Gash, 1967). We see that the New Poor Act did not help to decrease the level of poverty but rather made the situation worse within the working class.