Popular Protest Uk 19th and 20th Centuries

History Assignment Ð'- Unit 2

Social Reform in the 19th Century and Early 20th Century.

"Define the main reasons for the Poor Law Amendments Act of 1834."

The year 1834 is generally regarded as the dividing line when discussing the Poor Law due to the amendment act of the same year which set about to make, or attempting to make, monumental changes to the law. Before this year it is often referred to as the "Old Poor Law" and after this, due to the changes, the "New Poor Law". The old poor law originates from 1601and was based around the principle of administration by parish. During this time, the country was very mush a rural affair and made administration very difficult and hard to keep under control. An "Overseer" was appointed each year to collect a poor rate from certain persons, mainly land owners and wealthy families, but this position was unpaid and had to be done alongside the overseers normal job. He kept all accounts of money paid in and money handed out in poor relief, a very busy and hard working position, very much maligned by those that did it. Another feature of the Old Poor Law was that it distinguished between differing types of pauper, from "able-bodied" paupers, those that could work but didn't, and "impotent" paupers, those that, through physical disability or elderly, could not work at all. The Old Poor Law was also responsible in looking after any orphans in the parish as well as the paupers. There were varying ways poor relief was offered, generally either "indoor relief" or "outdoor relief". Outdoor relief meant the poor received help, either in money or food, indoor relief was when the poor had to enter the poor Ð'- house to receive help, to work for their help basically.

As we can see, the Poor Law did have some good points, it did provide help to those in need, but by 1830 there was growing concern for the unrest caused by the Poor Law, which led the Whig government to set up the "Royal Commission of Inquiry" in February 1832. A report on the Poor Law followed shortly after in February 1834 and was mainly the work of two prominent politicians, Edwin Chadwick and Nassau Senior. Chadwick had proposed to improve the administration of the Poor Law, which has we have seen, very mush needed reforming, and was heavily influenced by the views of the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. Bentham and utilitarianism believed that all laws should operate under the thesis of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." So as we can see, Chadwick could see that the Poor Law desperately needed to be administrated better for it to bring the "greatest happiness to the greatest number" and was a strong believer in this. The report itself was very highly critical of the administration of the Poor Law and it also commented on "the amateurish administration and lack of uniformity in the way the Poor Laws operate in different parishes." In the conclusion of the report it went as far as to say it was against the total abolition of the Law, but did favour the reform of the Law and this was heavily weighted by the work of Edwin Chadwick. There were also calls for the Poor Law to be firmer on the poor, called for by the land owners who had been so badly affected by the troubles caused by the riots and, including the "Swing Riots" of late 1830, it was demanded by these land owners that a harsher attitude be taken with the poor after the seemingly "paternal" breakdown between land owners, local gentry and labourers. The government had also taken heed of these messages when considering reform to the Poor Law Act.

"Critically evaluate its aims and effects."

The aim of the Reform Act was the address all the issues raised by Edwin Chadwick and the findings in the report. The report itself was written with some conviction and the government moved swiftly on its recommendations. By April 1834 there was a bill put before the house and by August 1834 it had been passed and was ready to be rolled out to the masses. There are several main aims that were addressed in the Reform Act to try and combat the issues raised by the report. Outdoor was to continue for the aged and infirm, the government felt it important that those that could not work should be able to still receive help and poor relief, but outdoor relief was to be abolished for the able-bodied. It was deemed that if an able-bodied man wanted help in the future he should enter the workhouses and work for his relief. This was called the work house test and was seen as a way of getting able-bodied people to work for their relief instead of just receiving help, so in doing so cutting a slice from the money needed to fund the Poor Law. This was key to many of the aims the Reform Act set out to do, money was just as important as making the Law more organised and better run. Conditions in the workhouses themselves were set to change, they were to become "less eligible", meaning less comfortable to work in and were set to be lower than those of the "lowest paid labourers in work". This principle was set to make the workhouse a feared place, and now more than ever a last resort, somewhere you would go only if there was nothing else available and you were totally desperate. The harsh attitude demanded by the land owners and the farmer-ratepayers had been heeded by the government, but what the act failed to recognise that a man could become destitute through no fault of his own, for example a trade depression or bad harvests and weather conditions, so critical at the time to a farming economy. It failed to recognise that not all paupers were necessarily indolent and lazy; some did actually want to work but could merely not find that means to do so. While it would have been a much-maligned affair before to enter a workhouse, these changes made it almost impossible for any self-respecting man, and in doing so creating a seemingly endless loop; now work, cannot claim outdoor relief, too fearful to enter work house, yet still cannot find work. It has created as many problems as it has solved in doing this and the question has to be asked whether this was solely included in the Reform Act to appease the land owners and rate payers, in doing so failing the very people the act was created to protect, the poor of the land.

To tackle to administration problem, a Poor Law Commission was to be set-up and based in Somerset House, in London. There were three commissioners to oversee the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country and they had the responsibility of imposing an element of uniformity across the country. While any "commission"