The 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws was a group set up to decide how to change the Poor Law systems in England and Wales. The group included Nassau Senior, a professor from Oxford University who was against the allowance system, and Edwin Chadwick, who was a Benthamite. The recommendations of the Royal Commission's report were implemented in the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.
Contents |
The formation of the Royal Commission was announced in by Viscount Althorp in the House of Commons on February 1, 1832; the body initially consisted of 7 commissioners and 16 assistant commissioners.[1] [2] The central board was expanded to 9 commissioners in 1833. The assistant commissioners were to be sent out to the country to collect data on poverty by visiting parishes and by having people respond to questionnaires, while the central board were to digest the information into a report.
The findings of the Poor Law Commissioners, published in 13 volumes, began appearing in February 1833.[2] They were used to argue that the existing system of poor relief needed a radical overhaul.
The nine members of the Central Board of the Commission were:[3], [1]
The first seven were appointed in 1832, the last two in 1833.[4]
The writers of the report suggested radical changes to Britain's poor relief system:
There was strong support for the report from all sides of Parliament. The report's ideas were quickly passed into law. The Whigs controlled the House of Commons and supported the utilitarian arguments of thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham. Those that did not support the bill were more concerned with the levels of centralisation the act would bring rather than the recommendations of the report such as the building of workhouses.
The report lowered the cost of poor relief which was a concern of MPs.
There is evidence that Nassau Senior had written the report before the data was collected – therefore evidence was used selectively to meet the pre-written report. Of the questionnaires sent out only 10% replied and some of the questioned directed a certain response. However, the inquiry was not supposed to be impartial, the commission wanted to change the existing system, and keeping the current system was not considered an option.[5] The questionnaires used asked leading questions that were poorly framed leading to responses that were ambiguous or irrelevant.[6]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||