Opposition to the English Poor Laws facts for kids
The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was a major change in how England helped its poor citizens. Before this, the old system, called the Elizabethan Poor Law, had been in place since 1601, during the time of Queen Elizabeth I. This old law meant that local areas had to help their poor residents.
However, by the early 1800s, many people felt the old system wasn't working well. Some thought it cost too much money, especially in farming areas where it was used to top up low wages. This system was sometimes called the 'allowance' or Speenhamland system. People wanted a new way to help the poor.
So, a special group, called a Royal Commission, looked into the problem. They suggested that help for the poor shouldn't be stopped completely, but it should be much stricter. They believed that only those who were truly desperate should ask for help. This new system would mostly provide help inside special buildings called workhouses. People in workhouses would be kept separate (men, women, boys, girls) and would have to follow strict rules. The 1834 Act allowed these big changes to happen.
Many people in Parliament supported the new law. But others strongly disagreed. They said it was unfair, un-Christian, and wouldn't work in the busy factory towns of Northern England. The Act itself didn't immediately create all these strict rules. Instead, it set up a system that made it easy to bring them in later.
At first, there was a lot of resistance to these new rules, especially in the industrial North between 1837 and 1839. But over time, the government managed to put the new system in place, sometimes using legal threats or even the military. Even so, some parts of the new system, like stopping all 'outdoor relief' (help given outside workhouses), were never fully put into practice in many Northern areas. Eventually, many of the original criticisms of the new law became widely accepted.
Contents
Why the Old Poor Law Was Criticized
Many people started to criticize the old Poor Law in the early 1800s, especially after the Napoleonic Wars with France. This criticism often came from people who studied how economies work, called political economists.
One famous thinker, Thomas Malthus, believed that helping the poor too much actually made poverty worse. He thought that poverty itself was the only thing that stopped the number of poor people from growing too fast. He also felt the old law made it hard for workers to move to places where there were jobs. This was because people could only get help in the parish where they were born or had lived for a long time. Malthus believed that without the Poor Law, there might be a few more very tough situations, but overall, people would be happier. He was one of the first to suggest that help should only be given inside workhouses, which was called 'indoor relief'. This was different from 'outdoor relief', which was money or goods given to people who lived outside the workhouse.
Another economist, David Ricardo, also wanted to get rid of the Poor Law. He wrote about this in his 1817 book, 'Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'. He argued that taxes collected to help the poor, called poor rates, meant there was less money available to pay wages. He also thought the old law rewarded laziness and stopped people from saving for their old age or when they were sick. He even believed it encouraged families to have too many children.
Edwin Chadwick, who was part of the Royal Commission that suggested the new law, also had strong opinions. He believed that wages would naturally find their right level if the government set clear rules. Chadwick didn't like that the old Poor Law was managed differently in every local area. This meant that poor people were treated very differently depending on where they lived.
Chadwick thought that able-bodied poor people should be made to work in workhouses. The conditions in these workhouses had to be worse than what the poorest worker outside the workhouse experienced. This idea was called 'less eligibility'. The goal was to make sure people would only ask for help if they were truly desperate. Chadwick believed this would lower the cost of helping the poor, allow wages to rise, and encourage people to work hard.
The New Poor Law: How it Started and Why People Fought It
The 1832 Royal Commission's Ideas
Parliament was worried about the high cost of helping the poor, especially in the southern parts of England. In many areas, the old system had become a regular way to top up workers' low wages. So, they set up a Royal Commission in 1832 to study the problem. The Commission's report suggested big changes, very similar to what Edwin Chadwick wanted:
- No More Outdoor Help for Able-Bodied People: The Commission said that healthy people who could work should only get help inside workhouses. The conditions there should be so tough that only truly needy people would accept the help. They said, "No one will go into such a house willingly; work, being confined, and strict rules will stop lazy and bad people. Only extreme need will make anyone accept comfort that comes from giving up their freedom and usual habits."
* This idea was meant to solve the problems of the old system. But the report didn't really think about what new problems it might create. There wasn't much real-world experience to support it. Only a few places had completely stopped outdoor help, and those problems might have just moved to nearby areas.
- Separate People in Workhouses: The Commission suggested that different groups of poor people should be kept apart. To do this, local areas should join together into 'unions'. Each workhouse in a union would be for a specific group, like men, women, or children. They even said, "separating husband and wife was necessary to properly run workhouses."
* In reality, most old workhouses weren't suitable for this new system. Many poor law unions soon needed to build new, special workhouses. These new buildings looked a lot like prisons because their goal was to keep many poor people securely at a low cost. The new Poor Law officials didn't mind this. They thought the "prison-like appearance" and the idea that workhouses were meant to "torment the poor" would make people afraid of them, which was seen as a good thing.
- A Central Board to Set Rules: The Commission believed that the new system wouldn't work if different unions treated poor people differently. So, they suggested a central board that could set standards and make sure they were followed. They thought Parliament couldn't do this directly because it had too much other work.
* This central board was supposed to make sure rules were the same across the whole country. But it was also said that it would allow rules to be adjusted for local situations without taking up Parliament's time.
- Less Support for Unmarried Mothers: The Commission also suggested that mothers of children born outside marriage should get much less support. They thought that the old system, which tried to find the fathers and make them pay, encouraged women to have children outside marriage. They argued that generous payments for these children meant mothers didn't need to marry. They said, "The result has been to encourage children born outside marriage; to make not being chaste the quickest way for a woman to get either a husband or enough money; and to encourage cheating and lying."
The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
Based on these suggestions, Parliament passed the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834. However, the Act didn't directly put all the Commission's ideas into law. For example, regarding unmarried mothers, the Act said fathers could still be pursued for support. But there was a big change: under the old law, the mother's word was enough to prove who the father was. Under the new law, there had to be other evidence to back up her claim.
To put the other suggestions into action, the Act created a three-person Poor Law Commission. This Commission was given the power to make rules, but Parliament didn't have much control over what they did. Local people still elected their local Board of Poor Law Guardians and paid for local poor relief. But the Poor Law Commission could tell these Guardians what to do, and the local people's opinions didn't matter much.
Fighting the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
Some politicians strongly opposed the Act. William Cobbett, a radical Member of Parliament (MP), voted against it. He argued that poor people had an automatic right to help and that the Act was designed to "make landowners rich" at the expense of the poor.
Richard Oastler, another politician, tried to convince leaders of the Tory party to oppose the Act. Oastler believed the Act was un-Christian because it treated the poor harshly, especially married couples. He famously said that the Act would separate "whom God hath joined together." He also thought setting up the powerful Poor Law Commission was against the country's laws. Oastler even told the Duke of Wellington that if the Bill passed, the person who caused the most trouble in the country would be the greatest patriot, and he would try to be that person. However, the Duke wasn't convinced. Tory landowners also wanted to reduce poor rates, just like the Whigs. So, the Bill passed easily in Parliament.
John Fielden, an industrialist and MP, was also a strong opponent. After Cobbett's death, Fielden was part of a small group of MPs who asked for the Act to be reviewed. Fielden even wanted it to be completely cancelled. But all they achieved was a special committee that mostly listened to the Poor Law Commission and other officials. Not surprisingly, this committee found little to criticize and much to praise.
Stopping the New Poor Law System
In Southern England
The new system was slowly put into place, starting in the southern counties of England, which were the areas it was designed to help. It did manage to greatly reduce the cost of poor relief there, with only small problems. For example, in Buckinghamshire, when poor people were moved to a workhouse, the police had to be called. In East Anglia, new workhouses were attacked. But these problems were usually stopped quickly with the help of police and sometimes the military.
In Northern England
In the North, people weren't as unhappy with the old Poor Law. The cost of helping the poor was much lower there. For example, in 1832, Lancashire, which had almost three times the population of Kent, spent only about 80% of what Kent did on poor relief. The cost wasn't even increasing much. In Sheffield, the cost of poor relief in 1833 was half of what it had been ten years earlier. So, there wasn't an urgent need to bring in the new law. It wasn't until January 1837 that the first steps were taken to introduce the system in the factory areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire. This involved setting up 'poor law unions' and electing Boards of Guardians. These Boards would then hire a clerk to manage whatever relief system the central Commission decided for that union.
A study in Yorkshire found that giving outdoor relief was an important and cheap way to deal with changes in trade. When factories had less work, they might lay off 500 people at once. It would be impossible to have enough workhouse space for so many. If unemployment was likely to be temporary, like during a slow period in trade or due to sickness, it made more sense to give outdoor relief. This avoided the cost and trouble of people having to restart their homes after leaving a workhouse. Also, if the main earner in a family with working children lost their job, it was smarter and cheaper to give them some outdoor relief than to move the whole family into a workhouse.
The Poor Law Commission said they intended to let the new Poor Law Boards in factory areas continue outdoor relief. But opponents of the new law believed the safest way to protect outdoor relief was to stop the new system from being set up at all. So, they tried to prevent new Poor Law Boards from being created. Or, they tried to elect Guardians who were against the new law and would make it hard to appoint clerks. They feared that if the new system was in place, the Commission could easily stop outdoor relief later.
In the industrial towns of the North, many groups like trade unions and other activist groups were already against the new Poor Law. Local Anti-Poor Law Associations quickly formed. They could easily gather large crowds for protest meetings against the Act and its local introduction. Many of the leaders of this movement had also been important in the Ten Hours Movement, which fought for shorter working hours.
Richard Oastler wrote letters to newspapers and spoke at meetings, calling the Poor Law Amendment Act cruel and un-Christian. He gave a famous speech in Huddersfield called "Damnation! Eternal damnation to the fiend-begotten 'coarser-food', new Poor Law!" Huddersfield was very slow to set up the new system. Large crowds would gather outside or break up meetings of the Guardians, but without enough violence for local officials to call for military help.
John Fielden tried to stop the Act in his area. He even threatened to close his family's textile mills if the Guardians of the Todmorden Poor Law Union didn't resign. When they didn't, Fielden's mills closed, leaving almost 3,000 people out of work. The Guardians stood firm, troops were sent to the area, and after a week, Fielden's mills reopened. However, some towns refused to accept the Guardians' authority and told their local 'overseer of the poor' to ignore the Guardians' orders. This led to some clashes and damage to property.
Protests Outside Parliament Against the New Poor Law
Even though the new Poor Law system was put in place more easily in some areas, protests continued. In towns like Oldham, Huddersfield, and Bradford, the Poor Law Guardians sometimes needed soldiers to protect them during riots against the Act. Even in Huddersfield, the new system was fully set up within two years.
But opposition to the new Poor Law didn't stop once the system was in place. Protests and large meetings continued outside Parliament. Terrible stories about how poor people were treated under the new law were told in speeches by its opponents. These stories also appeared in Chartist newspapers like the Northern Liberator and Northern Star. They were also collected in a book called The Book of the Bastilles by George R. Wythen Baxter.
Connection to Chartism
The way Parliament quickly passed the Poor Law Act of 1834, and its refusal to pass a law for a Ten-Hour workday, made many people believe that only big political changes would make Parliament truly care about working-class people. Because of this, the anti-poor law movement became closely linked with Chartism. Chartism was a movement that demanded more rights for ordinary people, especially the right to vote.
Leaders of the Anti-Poor Law movement had different ideas about Chartism. Oastler didn't want anything to do with it. He continued to speak only about the Poor Law and factory reform, even though his audiences were often Chartists. He told people they had the right to carry weapons (but not to bring them to meetings). He also warned that a social disaster would happen if the government continued to oppress the poor.
Rayner Stephens, a minister who was active in both factory reform and the Anti-Poor Law movements, spoke at Chartist meetings. He gave similar advice to Oastler. However, Stephens was less careful in his speeches and didn't convince people to leave their guns at home. Because of this, when the government cracked down on Chartist activities after the Todmorden Riots, Stephens was sent to prison for eighteen months for holding illegal meetings.
Fielden was against using force. At first, he tried to keep Anti-Poor Law meetings focused only on the Poor Law, so they wouldn't lose support from people who weren't Chartists. But during the peak of Chartist protests in 1838, he changed his mind. He thought the Poor Law would never be reformed until Parliament was changed, as the Chartists wanted. So, he spoke at Chartist meetings and urged Chartists to focus on their main goals and not be satisfied with small changes to the Poor Law or factory reform. When the Chartists' main petition failed, and the movement became more about physical force (which Fielden didn't support), he went back to his original idea. He believed the Anti-Poor Law movement had a better chance of success if it stayed separate from the wider Chartist protests.
Even after the government crackdown, the Poor Law Commissioners admitted that the protests influenced them. They said that the difficult situation of factory workers and the unrest caused by a Chartist riot made them very careful not to do anything in the factory areas of Lancashire that might cause trouble or be used by others to stir up protests.
Attacks on Workhouses
In the 1840s, there were two times when newly built workhouses were attacked by rioters. However, these riots weren't only about the Poor Law:
- In 1842, during the Plug Plot Riots, the Stockport Union Workhouse was attacked and damaged by rioters. Soldiers eventually stopped them.
- In 1843, during the Rebecca Riots, thousands of people attacked the workhouse in Carmarthen. They were demanding not only the removal of toll-gates but also changes to the Poor Law, which they strongly disliked. They entered the workhouse and were damaging it when the military arrived and restored order.
Growing Opposition in Parliament
Slowly, more and more criticism of the Poor Law grew in Parliament. When the Whig party tried to extend the Poor Law Commission's power in 1841, MPs complained about how petty some of the Commission's rules were (like making workhouse residents eat in silence). They also complained that the Commissioners wouldn't let local Boards of Guardians make many decisions and that the Commission avoided being checked by Parliament.
A general election happened before the Bill passed, and the Conservative party came to power. Some of their MPs said they won their seats because they had spoken out against the New Poor Law. However, the new government still proposed a Bill to extend the Commission's power until 1847 and make only small changes to the Poor Law. Even though there was still support for the New Poor Law from both main parties, some Conservative MPs, like Benjamin Disraeli, saw a chance to weaken their own party's leader by joining the opposition to unpopular Whig policies.
The Bill moved very slowly because opponents gave long speeches. John Fielden repeatedly tried to stop the debate. Many parts of the Bill had to be removed to get it passed before the Commission's power ran out. It was now stressed that the Commission's good point was that it allowed for differences, rather than making everything uniform. The 'New Poor Law' remained, but its original strict goals had been largely defeated.
The Poor Law Commission Is Replaced
The government changed in 1846. The new Home Secretary admitted that the Poor Law Commission had problems but promised it would be replaced. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1847 replaced the Poor Law Commission with a Poor Law Board. The President of this new Board was a Member of Parliament, which meant Parliament had more direct control. The Board's yearly report would be given to Parliament, unlike the Commission's report, which went to the Home Secretary.
The new Poor Law Board started its work in December 1847. Its powers weren't very different from the Commission's, but they were used in a different way. For example, the old Commission had to be asked for permission (and often refused) to allow a special meal on Christmas Day in workhouses. But the new rules specifically allowed this. The 'New Poor Law' still existed, but its very strict original purpose had been largely softened.
By the end of 1849, the Chartist newspaper Northern Star was hopeful about getting more people the right to vote. It found encouragement in what had happened to other big protest movements. It noted that the Ten Hours Bill had become a law, and the strict Poor Law Commission had been replaced by a Poor Law Board. It said that the very harsh ideas of the old system had been replaced by a policy that was "more in accordance with humanity and reason."
