Opposition to the Poor Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Both the Elizabethan Poor Law and the Poor Law Amendment Act attracted a great deal of opposition from a wide range of people in society, from paupers and workers; to the landed gentry and academics. Likewise, the reasons that people opposed the Poor law were also just as varied.

Contents

[edit] Opposition to the Elizabethan Poor Law

Opposition to the Poor Law grew in the early nineteenth century after the Napoleonic Wars with France, especially among academic circles. Most free market economists such as David Ricardo felt it should be abolished, Thomas Malthus thought it was self-defeating and others such as Robert Owen, on the other hand, thought that it did not extend far enough.[1]

[edit] David Ricardo

David Ricardo supported the abolition of the Poor Law in his book 'Principles of Political Economy and Taxation' published in 1817. He argued that moving resources into welfare moves them out of the economy, which reduces the money available to pay wages. He also argued that it gave an incentive for laziness, discouraged people from saving for old age or illness, and encouraged irresponsibly large families. [2]

[edit] Thomas Malthus

Demographer and economist Thomas Malthus also felt that the Poor Law ought to be abolished, since it limited the mobility of labour. Although he conceded that if there had been no poor law there would be "a few more instances of severe distress," he still felt that "the aggregate mass of happiness among the common people would have been much greater than it is at present." However, he was one of the first to advoate so called 'indoor relief' in workhouses for the poor as opposed to handouts.[3]

[edit] Robert Owen

Robert Owen was a socialist who supported creating full employment by principles of cooperative ownership and against individualism which he thought was one of the causes of poverty. Instead, he used an approach based on macroeconomics that would see the gold standard replaced by a form of paper money and prices based on the amount of labour put into a produce, similar to Marxist Economics.[4]

[edit] Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act

[edit] Rumour and propaganda

  • Workhouses were built a long way from most industrial centres, which had the effect of giving the impression that they were actually extermination centres designed to kill paupers to keep taxes low.
  • The Book of Murder was widely circulated, and believed to be the work of the Poor Law commission, which recommended infanticide.
  • Rumours were circulated that that all families with more than three children would have 'excess' children killed.
  • Some people argued that the use of cheap labour in workhouses was an attempt to intentionally depress the national wage bill by forcing more and more people into the labour market for no wages.[5]

[edit] Genuine fears

  • Some people felt that the Poor Law Amendment Act was too centralised, and indeed it was a huge change from the parochial, paternalistic Elizabethan Poor Law. The commissioners were seen as not understanding life in rural areas and being too focused on London and other industrial centres.
  • Some rich landowners felt that it violated the old social contract between the rich and the poor, by making it less paternalistic.
  • Rural ratepayers feared an increase in taxes to pay for workhouses when in rural areas handouts were, per head, cheaper.
  • In northern areas reliant on the annual cotton trade Poor Law Unions would have to build workhouses that would be huge to cover almost the entire population one half of the year and stand empty the next half when jobs were available.[5]

[edit] Protests in the South

Most of the research and evidence done by the poor Law Commission of Enquiry had taken place in the South East of England and when the Poor Law Amendment Act was introduced it was in a phase of economic growth. Most of the opposition here came from local magistrates who were unhappy because their power to enforce the Poor Law had been removed and disliked the removal of the traditional master-servant relationship.

There were riots in Buckinghamshire when paupers were transported 3 miles from Chalfont St. Giles to Amersham and the police had to use the Riot Act to calm riots down. In East Anglia new workhouses were attacked.[5]

[edit] Protests in the North

There was opposition from the north to interference from Londoners who wanted to prevent cheaper outdoor relief during a period of cyclical unemployment. This along with the Ten Hours Movement caused many anti-poor law associations to spring up. While there were protests in areas such as Oldham and Huddersfield in other areas the Poor Law Amendment Act was implemented relatively easily. Groups that were against the PLAA - radicals and paternalistic Tories were so different that the movement quickly failed.[5]

[edit] End of opposition

Most opposition to the Poor Law was not organised and therefore had little chance of succeeding against the will of the government. Furthermore, the deaths of the Tolpuddle martyrs had the effect of halting organised opposition to the poor law. However, an unlikely association of wealthy, paternalistic, Tories and working class radicals was formed, and although it failed quickly, it would again find itself rebuilt to a degree in the governments of Benjamin Disraeli years later. Until then, many working-class men turned to Chartism as a result.[5]

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/ssh5.htm#Malthus
  2. ^ http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/ssh5.htm#Ricardo
  3. ^ http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/people/malthus.htm
  4. ^ http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/ssh5.htm#Owen's%20socialism
  5. ^ a b c d e Rees, R. Poverty and Public Health 1815-1948, Heinemann, 2001. ISBN 0435327151
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/p/Opposition_to_the_Poor_Law_e18f.html"