Charity Org
Regulates poor relief
so that only
‘deserving’ get help
Industrial Revolution
By 1851, half the
population were
in towns. First
nation.
Unpredictable swings
Poverty wasn’t new,
but concentration of
the poor in new
towns made poverty
more visible
Doctrine of self-help
Very important. Should be a man
and go and sort things out
yourself.
However, prudent people did use
collective as a fail safe – ie pay
sub to friendly soc.
Collectivist
Friendly societies & trade
unions were collectivist – ie
get together. These were
exclusive and depended on
subscritiopns – also no
legal power.
1834 PLAM very collectivist
– backed by law.
KEY CONCEPTS
Absolute poverty
Lack of funds for
the basic human
needs eg shelter
Morality
If you were poor
due to drink,
laziness etc then
you were
undeserving of
relief. This was
discourage
dependence and
pauperism
Relative poverty
Have basic needs, but
below a generally
acceptable standard.
In 1800’s crop failure
was largely a thing of
the past due to tech,
so most poor were
relatively so.
Why categorise?
They wanted to
categorise poor
so could then do
something about
it in order to push
them into labour
– good for
economy
Vagrants
40-100000 men and
boys were vagrants.
They begged
despite the
Elizabethan poor
law stating they
shouldn’t.
Diets
Price of bread always fluctuating.
Made artificially high by Corn
Laws. Lots of broths, stews etc.
Took ingenuity – especially as
standard of food being sold was
very poor.
New working class?
Proletariat were poor
relative to rest of
nation. Some argue
that I.R created a
new, SINGLE
working class – too
simplistic? 1% of
pop has 67% wealth
- fear
BEING POOR
Survival
£1 = 20s
1s = 12p
1p = ½ p and 2 farthings
Inflation remained fairly negligible during
19th cent so needed £1 per week per family.
No room at all for any extravagance –
transport, beer, letters, stamps etc.
Respectable
‘Respectable’ workers
lived away from the
slums and deemed
themselves superior to
inner circle.
W.Booth
(Salvos 1865). 3
circles of poverty.
Outer is labour
aristoc eg
handloom. Inner
= ‘darkest
England”.
Chadwick 1842
Report on
San.cond of
lab.pop of GB ‘
unknown country’
Paine – higher tax on landowners.
Basic social welfare – inc ed
allowances and OAP. 1792 Rights of
Man. Came up with radical notion of
workhouse. Liked v much.
Owen – Socialist, factory owner.
Glasgow – community based on co-op.
Govt should follow suit. Too
revolutionary.
Ricardo – Inf by M and Adam Smith. 1817
‘principles of pol economcy and taxation’.
Abol poor law cos encouraged laziness and
kids. Have a free market economy.
1601. For
humane & order
reasons. 15000
parishes resp for
orphans, sick and
elderly
Poorhouses for
indigent / deserving.
Work provided and if
none, then cash or
food relief.
Financed – poor
rates based on
property value.
Each parish had
overseer and
vestry acc to
local mag.
17th Cent – laws of
settlement. Born / 3yrs
settlement.
1782 Gilberts Act –
parishes can unite to
form auths and share
poorhouse and costs.
OLD POOR LAW
Malthus – econ writer. Pop
geometrical, ag arithmetical.
Pop would outstrip food. Abol
poor law cos diminished will
of poor to save and
landowners would pay higher
wages cos no rates. Also, no
incentive to have kids.
Nat Char Org did have
good features – central
admin, universal
standards. But B showed
lack of respect for poor’s
dignity, rights or
emotional needs. Would
make totally dep.
Chadwick followed B
Wasn’t first welfare system but
genuine and patriarchal motives.
Some workers even demanded
patriarchy as a right.
Bentham – doc of utilitarianism. Greatest hapiness to
greatest number. 1798 ‘pauper man improved’. Entire
resp to Nat Char Org. 250 indus houses (half mill pop)
rising to 500. Abol outdoor relief. Deliberately tough.
Those born stay til early 20s. Profit.
1795 Speenhamland
System. Mags, Berks
cos of French Rev and
econ downturn. Pay ag
labs according to number
of kids and price of
bread. Ie paying those
who are working and
poor.
Variations – Roundsman system –
send unemp round farms and
allowance to farmer.
Labour rate system – farmers
exempt from rate if took on
unemp.
Suggestions – Greater distinction
between poor labourer and pauper.
Impressed by Southwell (notts) where
they already had a deterrent
workhouse and had stopped outdoor
relief. New central auth needed. Stop
Findings – saw ‘demoralisation’ outdoor rel. Less eligibility.
of working class.’system which
aims its allurements at the
weakest parts of our nature –
which offers marriage to the
young, security to the anxious,
ease to the lazy and impunity to
the profligate’.
Why – Corn Laws to help econ. No
imort until 80s a quarter. Riots cos
kept price of bread artificially high
and couldn’t see the logic. Riots
1817-9 returning soliders.
1832 ROYAL COM
400 Pages – 15000
copies. First part
attacked old poor law.
Second gave
recommendations.
Criticised – only 10% of
parishes invest.
Confusing q’s to semiliterate overseers. Used
to back up predetermined conclusions.
9 members – Nass Senior –
prof of political econ at
Oxford. Chadwick (B;s sec).
26 ass comms – interviewed,
questionnaires, attended
vestry meetings.
Riots meant susp of Habeus
Corpus (now imprisoned in
secret and without trial).
New Seditious Meetings Bill,
6 Acts (50 people,
publications etc). Seemed to
confirm policy of repression
following end of Napolean.
Urban riots matched in rural
areas in late 20s. Eg Swing
riots – burnt machines and
effiges of Poor Law Comms.
1830s again – Fra – political
turmoil.
Corruption – poor law work
given to local tradespeople.
H of C investigated. 1819
Act set up select vestries.
But even these became
corrupt – eg Morpeth Sel V
– 11/20 in ale indus and
most relief payments ended
up there.
1852 Outdoor Relief Regulation Order –
withdrew compulsory labour from 1842 act.
Also, most unions allowed to replace
workhouses by outside labour. (therefore
must softer). By 1871, only 1 in 6 unions
abiding by the 1844 order. But workhouses
seen as symbol of new system and housed
over 150,000 by 1870.
Easily passed parl – but local
identity stronger then national
as v rural. Thus compromises
in imp centrality. Powers of
persuasion needed with
recalcitrant localities.
Indus towns – cont to give outdoor rel cos
periodic trade dep meant 1000s and little other
humane choice. Not big enough or numerous
enough. Labour Test orders Act 1842 – if
outdoor must be given, then must do some
parish work – eg stone breaking, but many
ignored this.
Generally good – by 180 14000
parishes into unions. !2 mill pop.
Only 800 parishes not in. Most of
350 new workhouses built by
1839 were in Rural South – big
success here. North, not so – W.
Ridings and Lancs stern
resistance. Hardly any built.
(also, Cornwall)
Limited success – delayed
workhouse building meant cont
outdoor relief. 1844 Comm did
‘outdoor rel prohib order’ to every
union and hoped ¾ would stop. Many
didn’t. Rules open to interp eg no
outdoor ‘except in accident or emerg
– therefore Guardians did what they
felt like.
IMPLEMENTATION
Enforcement - Not many ass
comms. Close sup impossible.
Accumulated masses of results
and stats but imposs for
Somerset House to deal with it –
unpaid office clerks. Admin probs
ignored as H of C desired to play
down failures.
First job was unions – lots of
pub meetings. Local interest
groups didn’t like the
union=30 parishes pattern
cos can loose contracts and
higher costs. Time pressure –
had to be registering births,
deaths and marriages by
1837. Also contend with
Gilberts unions and the 20%
of parishes who had select
vestries – clash.
Commissioners didn’t have to
report to parl. Initially only for
5 years and then renewed
annually after 1839. 1847
turned into Poor Law Board –
more direct control after
workhouse atrocities – report
to parl.
Ass Comms had power to alter
exiting workhouses but had to get
Guardians to approve for building
of new ones. Some ass c had big
political skill here, some didn’t.
1836 9 ass comms upto 21.
All agree its big significance
and the fact that the poor
hated it
Broadly reflected
commissions recc: estab
central auth, parishes into
unions, stopped outdoor,
less eligib, workhouse test
– ie if leave, no relief.
Central – PLC 3 comms in
London. Chadwick
Secretary (upset). 1
union=30 parishes. Board
of Guardians to be elected
to strictly run workhouses.
PLAM 1834
Some critics fuse both. A
new free market
philosophy gained
hegemony without
displacing control of
landed aristocracy. Eg
MJ Daunton (Revisionist)
Other critics – Actually
maintained powers of landed
class. New system gives more
control over turbulent,
disaffected peasantry. After all,
1832 comm had been
appointed by aristocratic H of
C. Also landowners on board
of Guardians. Eg Anthony
Brundage (traditionalist)
Critics – It’s class
legislation by newly
enfranchised mid class.
Done to reduce rate
burden and force
workers to accept lower
wages in fear. Workers
forced to accept
principles of free market
economy / capitalism –
eg Mitchell Dean
(Marxist)
Elsewhere, relative ease.
NE v easy and London too.
Midlands no one took direct
action against trade slumps
(eg found in Nott stocking
trade)
Todmorden 1838 – John
Fielden, Radical MP.
Closed down factory and
stopped paying rates in
protest at elected Board
of Guardians. Workers
attacked homes of
Guardians.
Overall – only anti poor law
movt was in W Ridings and
Lancs. No national coherence
and ad hoc. Too broad alliance
eg evangelical Tories and
working class radicals. Late
1830s turned to chartism – ie
reform would come by having
parl elec by working men.
Poor – patriarchal rights gone, symbolised
new harsh auth, punishment for being poor,
prison-like. Often wh a distance from home
thus impersonal and threatening. Fuelled
rumours of killing poor – following Malthus’
views on pop. Eg book of murder. 2
anonymous propaganda pamphlets talked
about gassing kids.
No distinction between
deserving and
undeserving. Hard
working thrown in with
criminals and treated the
same.
OPPOSITION
Severe trouble in N – PLAM added to env of ’10 hour movt’
– camp for 10hr day. Comm tried in 1837+8 to intro unions
(chadwich had advised to do it 3 yrs earlier when econ
better) in Lancs and W Ridings. Mobs oftern formed upton
5000. Bradford 1837 and Dewsbury 1838 attacked
workhouse buildings. Troops needed.
Rioting – Kent 1835 and
Amersham Union, Berks. Mob
tried to stop paupers biegn moved
to new workhouse in Amersham.
Police and mags read riot act and
armed yeomanry.
Centralisation – John Walter
of Times – a berks mag did
not like it. Locality should run
itself. Indep of local parish
deemed cornerstone of
English liberty.
Campaigners said forced workers to
accept lower wages. Highlighted lashes
between old poor law guardians and
vestrymen who bel they were doing
well. Whouses in towns not enough for
bad times, a useless drain on resources
when times were good.
Ratepayers – recognised indoor
rel cost twice that of outdoor
relief and feared breaking of
patriarchal ties weakened social
control.
Abuse – many instances. March 1846
select HofC committee invest
Andover, Hamps. Systematically
underfed, watered milk, eating
marrow off bones set to crush. Drunk
bully master, cheap and undignified
burials, sexual assault by master and
son. Only forced to resign, that’s all.
Centralised standards said to
protect. Ie cant beat adults or
girls, minimum food
standards. Confinement cells.
But some rules were
tyrannical – eg if in wrong part
of workhouse, not asking
permission, too much noise
etc then in trouble.
Food – guardians to choose from 6
dietaries. Eg no2 was almost entirely
bread and cheese for 3 meals. Meat
only on Sunday. Variable quality. No
cutlery.
Unpleasant tasks – oakum
picking, untwist ropes, stone
breaking, crush animal bones
for fert (stopped 1840s)
Debate – Andover atypical,
other atrocities were exag
and invented. Also,
centralisation provides
prot. But if system
designed to be harsh,
people will inevitably push
the boundaries.
WORKHOUSES
Uniform – segregation
even if married – v bad
cos of Victorian family
values. For deterrent so
wouldn’t spend ages in
there like old system.
Monotonous – Up 5,
Brek 6-7. Lunch 12-1.
Supper6-7, Bed 8.
Compuls prayers.
Design – Sampson Kempthorne. Y
shaped, two or 3 stories. Main had
workhouses. One wing had
kitchen/dining/chapel. Other had
dorms/day rooms. Masters yard in
middle.
Also, cruciform – two stories. Wall
held workrooms and 4 work / ex
yards. Each arm of cross had
dining/dorm/chapel/schoolrooms.
200-500 paupers.
Less elig – v strict but didn’t
want cruelty. Said that they
were protecting them from old
poor law by having standards.
Winter 1836 – 209 applied for relief
in Uckfield, Sussex. Only 11
accepted workhouse. Rest had
nothing as a result (cos heard
workhouse so bad)