TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT A FAILURE?

The Relationship with Parliament The commission was independent of Parliament which was both a strength and weakness. WEAKNESS: No spokesman in Parliament to defend it from criticism. The Commissioners and assistant commissioners were almost universally hated. STRENGTHS: It had a powerful constitutional position because it had been established by parliament. Overall, it did not have the direct power than many people assumed it would wield.

Assistant Commissioners Made sure that decisions made centrally were applied at local level in Parishes. Established Unions of Parishes so each Union could set up its own workhouse. BUT there were immediately problems……..

Poor Law Unions In Theory a Union should compromise 30 parishes (about 10000 people), however; First Problem: many parishes were already merged under Gilbert’s Act of 1782. Most refused to rejoin into different Poor Law Unions. Even when they combined the assis. Comm had no powers to insist the new Unions build Workhouses. They were forced to negotiate.

Priorities of Poor Law Policy after 1834 Transfer of out-of-work and underemployed workers in rural areas to urban areas where employment was plentiful = programme of workhouse construction. Protection of urban ratepayers from a sudden surge of demand from rural migrants prior to their obtaining regular employment = settlement laws.

Attempt to enforce workhouse relief Introducing deterrent workhouses = reducing able-bodied pauperism Assumed outdoor relief would stop. Commissioners only able to work slowly – building/adapting workhouses took time.

1830s = commission began 1842 = Outdoor Labour Test Order 1844 = General Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order BUT effectively implementing orders became a problem. Outdoor relief continued as most common form of poor relief.

Attempt to Enforce Settlement Acts In operation since 16th century In 19th century – seen as necessary to spread cost of maintaining paupers to be spread between urban and rural parishes and to deter workhouses. 1840 = 40, 000 paupers moved from current parishes back to parishes of settlement (birth/marriage). Costly Process, practically and administratively. Cost in human suffering = incalculable.

Conclusion Caused riots and rebellions = spontaneous reaction to unwelcome change at first. Opposition unorganised = no chance of success. Ended with ratepayers and parishes seeing change in in the rates they paid.

Therefore… In the long term = implementation of poor law amendment act was a SUCCESS!!!