Essay on What Does the New Poor Law Tell You About Attitudes Towards the Poor in the Mid-Nineteenth Century?

The 1834 New Poor Law, has been described as one of, “the most important and controversial pieces of legislation”[1], or an act that was more based on continuity, which in many areas, particularly the countryside, was largely ignored[2]. Some historians such as Michael Rose, state that it “made no changes in the existing system” [3]. The New Poor Law is a controversial topic in itself and causes a difference of opinion between historians. The act was based on a few simple principles. One being the idea of “less eligibility” [4] (conditions within a workhouse should be less preferable to those of a hard working laborer)[5], and any over relief that was given outside the workhouse was prohibited[6].

In this essay, I will be answering the question of what the New Poor Law tells us about the attitudes towards the poor during the mid-nineteenth century. I will be particularly focusing upon the views of the government and landed classes towards the poor, as they are the ones who implemented the policy. To do this I will be separating these attitudes into ones I consider positive, (the idea that the government was attempting to help the poor), and the negative, (that it was done to “rob the rights of the people”)[7]. I will also explore the idea that the New Poor Law does not show any attitude towards the poor, but was done for other reasons unrelated to positive and negative attitudes towards them.

The idea that the attitude of the government and middle classes was, that they should treat the poor in a harsh fashion, is the most well known portrayal of life during the mid-nineteenth century. This has been illustrated in books such as ‘Oliver Twist’, by Charles Dickens, which shows the New Poor Law and its workhouses, having a terrible effect on the lives of the poor[8]. The fact the workhouses were made intentionally “depressing” and “degrading” [9] shows that the government had a negative attitude towards the poor. They wanted to punish them. Historian Hewitt in his book ‘Children in English Society’, describes the difficult living conditions of children in the workhouses. They resided on the same ward as senile old men, the war was staffed by only one nurse[10]. The fact that children of the poor were not spared from the harsh treatment, this “absolute indifference”[11], shows that the government was not interested in the needs of anyone who was poor.

Whole families would be split up upon entering the workhouses, and even after they had exited and put in a huge amount of hard work, they would still have nothing[12]. This could indicate that the government simply wanted to hide the poor away and devolve their responsibility of them. Whole groups of paupers would be removed from their parishes after 21 days notice and placed into a work house[13]. This further strengthens the argument that the government had the attitude the poor were something that should be totally removed. It was a total “abdication of responsibility”[14], by the government towards the poor. Even when a job was available, all it did was encourage fierce competition within the working class[15]. This served well for the government as it distracted the poor from the social threats seen in industrial towns in 1832, for example the radical movement[16]. The radical movement were a group fiercely pushing for universal male franchise. The poor would be too busy focused upon gaining employment to feed their families, instead of joining these groups who placed pressure on the government. However, this lack of job opportunity further brought forward the conclusion among the poor, that the New Poor Law was an “attempt to punish”[17] them. The government seemed to give the poor very little chance of getting out of their situation, the only option being the “threat “[18] of the workhouse. This lack of option and the harsh conditions within the workhouse shows the government had a harsh attitude towards the poor. The fact the poor within the work house were referred to as “inmates” [19] further supports this view. The workhouse in many ways achieved its goal, such as in Attenborough where paupers stated they would prefer to leave the country rather than face the misery they had within their native land[20].

It was not just the conditions in the workhouses that demonstrate a ruthless attitude towards the poor, even “a man unemployed through no fault of his own” [21], was still not eligible for outdoor relief. This could show that government thought the poor were being lazy, and that really there were opportunities to work, no excuse justified it. This was the government having an attitude of mistrust towards the poor. It was widely believed by the government that outdoor relief to the able bodied had done nothing but cause “idleness” among the poor[22]. There was also evidence of the government having a detached and unfair attitude towards the poor. In many cases, there was genuine need of outdoor relief being required such as the people who needed it due to severe ill health, as mentioned by Boyson in his work, ‘The New Poor Law in North East Lancashire’[23]. Even those with mental conditions would suffer if they had no one to support them, this is seen as extremely unfair as the condition of these persons was not their, “crime” [24]. The banning of outdoor relief to all shows that the age of philanthropy that Cobbett mentioned during his rant against the New Poor Law was over as far as the government was concerned[25]. It was not just the government, the middle classes also had an unwillingness to pay for the needs of the poor according to Fraser[26], the harsh attitude of the government seemed to be spreading to anyone who did not require the help themselves. The harsh conditions within the workhouse and the total lack of help and abdication of responsibility by the government, shows an attitude that it was, “a crime to be poor” as Disraeli himself stated[27]. This would support the view that the New Poor Law was simply “a declaration of war” by the government on the poor, as suggested by Thane[28].

However, there is evidence to suggest that in fact, the New Poor Law was created in order to benefit the poor. This would therefore show the government had a sympathetic attitude to the poor in the mid-nineteenth century. It has been suggested by Fraser, that workhouses, were in fact, not as harsh as “popular myth” [29] makes them appear. In many cases, husband and wives were allowed to remain together[30]. Even on the occasions where the separation did occur, this can hardly be described as “grinding the poor down” [31]. In many ways the workhouses were useful, and supplied a number of different facilities all under one roof, including resources for education and medical services[32]. The fact workhouses were of benefit, shows they were not created for punishment, but by the government in order to aid the poor, showing a supportive attitude. This may have not been true for all workhouses, but in Sutton for example, workhouses worked hard to educate children, particularly in skills such as tailoring, which would help them gain employment in the future[33]. Children being educated in the workhouses were also only taught in the religion of their parents[34], showing the government had respect and sensitivity towards the poor as their taking into account their differing faiths. Boyson infers that for many inmates within the workhouse, it was considered their only home[35]. This new image, often not portrayed in the media sheds a new light on the idea of the workhouse. If true, this would show that the government was not at all harsh and were merely implementing policies that they thought would benefit the people.

The historian Trattner touches upon the idea that there is a comparison between the New Poor Law 1834 and the New Deal as they were both based on the idea of doing things for ones self, with minimal hand out[36]. This would show the government having a ‘tough love’ attitude towards the poor, as they are still helping, but they are doing it by making the poor help themselves. The idea of charity had lost popularity and now the idea of what people could do for themselves in society was focused upon[37]. The workhouses could be seen as a “deterrent” [38] by the government to prevent idleness. They were seen as an “incentive” [39] to working and not claiming any relief. Although this shows the government taking a stance of superiority over the poor, it does show that they were attempting to help them. This proves the government had a positive attitude towards the poor and wanted to assist its people.

Edsall describes the argument that the government also may have used the New Poor Laws as a way of combating the corruption that existed in modern society and that was preventing the poor from raising themselves out of their less than desirable situation. He discusses how many landowners were corrupt and would take advantage of poverty stricken men desperately needing work, to gain employees who would accept low wages[40]. This would show that the government was attempting to help the poor, even at the expense of the landed classes who were benefiting from the corruption. This was a dangerous move by the government as the landed classes were some of the few that were enfranchised after the 1832 reform act. The New Poor Law of 1834 prevented corruption and helped the laborer in many ways. It often meant they would gain a wage increase from their employer, because if they didn’t, they may be forced to seek the workhouse as their employment, this would take them off the market altogether[41]. In my opinion it would have also stopped the resentment between the laborers and the paupers as none could be seen to be getting fairer treatment than the other. There were also steps in place, like the modern day policies of affirmative action that would mean pauper children would be employed as apprentices. Employers that did so were given a premium[42]. This confirms that the government was taking every step necessary to protect the poor.

When considering the governments view on the poor during the mid-nineteenth century, it would be wise to view the opinion of the poor on their own situation. The actuality is, according to Knotts, paupers took little part in the protests that occurred during the creation of the 1834 poor law[43]. If the paupers were not unhappy with its creation then surely the government did not make it to punish them as they would have protested their own mistreatment. Although this could have been due to the political ignorance of the pauper, who may not necessarily have known what was going on within parliament as the bill passed through with “remarkable resolution” [44]. However, one must consider the possibility that the poor may have been afraid to protest, particularly after the Peterloo Massacre 1819. Many protesters were killed or injured during Peterloo, this meant the poor may of wished to avoid any such protest to avoid the same fait.

It could be argued that the New Poor Law of 1834, does not show any attitude from the government towards the poor, and that it could show more about the current economic problems that existed within England. Thane suggests that the New Poor Law was introduced to maximize the workforce and reduce government expenditure during their time of trade depression[45]. This would suggest the government was more interested in international competition for trade, rather than having a positive or negative attitude towards the poor[46]. The government could no longer afford to subsidise the poor if they were going to keep up with their rivals, as they needed all funds available[47]. I am in no doubt that the poor did suffer during the years of the New Poor Law, but I do not feel this was an intentional act by the government. The law was merely a reaction to the poor economic climate.

Another way in which it aided the economy was through the workforce. It encouraged the maximum amount of workers to get into industries and make products that could be used as trade that would be profitable for the nation[48]. Knotts suggests that it also helped to revolutionize industry within the northern industrial towns[49]despite there lack of political representation, even after the 1832 reform act[50]. One example of an industry increase was the rise in “skilled artisans”[51] which was particularly evident in Birmingham after the New Poor Laws creation. Workers were also encouraged to move to the northern industrial towns from rural areas which had less employment opportunities, this not only helped the economy but helped the workers to gain employment which they desperately needed; the New Poor Law obviously had its advantages, as consequently, there was a boom in industry in the proceeding years of 1835 and 1836[52]. The New Poor Law could be noted as a shrewd economic policy that was a defense against trade depression, rather than a policy that was negatively or positively made to affect the poor[53]. Alternatively, if this view is to be accepted, it does show the government selfishly overlooking the needs of the poor at the expense of economic competition.

Geographically workhouses varied greatly, the experience of a workhouse inmate in London would have varied hugely from that of an inmate from a northern town. This lack of consistency would suggest that the government had neither a negative or positive attitude. If the attitude was negative or positive then every workhouse would have been the same, displaying the same punishing or supportive characteristics. This however was not the case, Readings workhouses were hugely overcrowded, not only that, visits from the outside to ailing inmates was often limited to only once a month[54], the way in which sick inmates had little sympathy show towards them, shows a punishing attitude. Yet, workhouse inmates in Essex were far more satisfied with their treatment and one account shows the delight in receiving “a lump of money” they would otherwise never had received if not for the workhouses[55]. The way in which geographical area causes such a wide variant in the treatment of the poor in the workhouses, shows that the government had neither a positive or negative attitude, but it does show, that the different poor law unions had varying attitudes towards the poor.

The problem with considering what the attitudes were towards the poor in the mid-nineteenth century, is that it covers a wide range of people who would have had varying opinions on the issue. Not every member of the government would have thought exactly the same way towards the issue of the New Poor Law or the poor in general. There were “fifty votes against the bill” [56] showing that not every member of the government had the same opinion on the poor and the measures that would be most effective or inferior, (depending on their individual opinion of the poor). This evidence exposes that it is very difficult to answer the question, what does the New Poor Law tell you about attitudes towards the poor in the mid-nineteenth century? As it would have to encompass the opinion of every person, to truly be a fair evaluation.

To conclude, I feel attitudes towards the poor were extremely negative. All aid seemed to be cut off and they were left to survive without support when in genuine need. The only alternative for the poor and suffering was to go into an institution that punished them and left them in the same state as they had arrived when they did eventually leave. Life was extremely difficult for a pauper who was unemployed and this was considered apt by other classes who felt the poor had got what they deserved. Former Prime Minister Lloyd George, saw it as an evil that should be banished, showing later government members saw how much the Workhouses had made the poor suffer[57].

The idea of outdoor relief is an issue still very much waged in modern society. Unfortunately some will always have an uncharitable view towards the poor and feel that their situation is due to idleness and do not take other circumstances into account. I feel I must conclude that, this was generally the opinion towards the poor during the Mid-nineteenth century.

Bibliography

Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, (Manchester university press, Rowman and littlefield, inc., New Jersey 1971)

Micheal E Rose, The Poor and the City: the English Poor Law in its Urban Context, (Leicster university press 1985)

Sidney and Beatrice, Breakup the Poor Law and Abolish the Workhouse, (the Fabien society,1909)

Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, (Macmillan press ltd 1976)

John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, (Croom Helm, Ltd 1986)

Pat Thane, Foundations of the Welfare State, (Longman group UK limited, 1982)

Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society Volume 2, (Routledge and Kegan Paul 1973)

Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, (Goldsmiths college, 1960)

Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare state, Fifth Edition, (the free press 1994)

Carolyn Steedman, Masterand Servant, Love and Labour in the English Industrial Age, (Cambridge university press 2007)

The Poor Law, Poor Law: Encyclopaedia <http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Poor_Law/id/579183> [Accessed 21^st January 2009]

The Poor Law Amendment act: 14^th August 1834, The Victorian Web http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/plaatext.html [accessed 22nd January 2009]

Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Literature that Changed the World <http://worldliteratures.suite101.com/article.cfm/oliver_twist> [accessed 22^nd January 2009]

Tillyard, English Town Development in the Nineteenth Century (Blackwell Publishing 1913)

Michelle Higgs, Life in the Victorian and Edwardian Workhouses <http://www.michellehiggs.co.uk/Workhouse.htm> [Accessed 20^th March 2009]

Reading poor law Union and workhouse, England Workhouses <http://www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/england/berks/reading_workhouse.htm> [Accessed 21^st March 2009]

Workhouses in the county of Essex, England Workhouses <http://www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/england/essex/essex_workhouses.htm> [Accessed 21^st March 2009]

Workhouse quotes and quotations, ThinkExsist.com <http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/workhouse/> [Accessed 20^th March 2009]

[1] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, (Croom Helm, Ltd 1986) p. preface

[2] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, (Macmillan press ltd 1976) p. 170

[3] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City: the English Poor Law in its Urban Context, (Leicester university press 1985) p.7

[4] The Poor Law, Poor Law: Encyclopaedia <http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Poor_Law/id/579183> [Accessed 21^st January 2009]

[5] The Poor Law Amendment act: 14^th August 1834, The Victorian Web <http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/plaatext.html> [accessed 22nd January 2009]

[6] The Poor Law Amendment act: 14^th August 1834, The Victorian Web <http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/plaatext.html> [accessed 22nd January 2009]

[7] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 5

[8] Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Literature that Changed the World <http://worldliteratures.suite101.com/article.cfm/oliver_twist> [accessed 22^nd January 2009]

[9] Sidney and Beatrice, Breakup the Poor Law and Abolish the Workhouse, (the Fabien society,1909) p. 574

[10] Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society Volume 2, (Routledge and Kegan Paul 1973) p. 642

[11] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 19

[12] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, (Goldsmiths college, 1960) p. 42

[13] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 62

[14] Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, (Manchester university press, Rowman and Littlefield, inc., New Jersey 1971) p. 23

[15] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 3

[16] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 9

[17] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, p. 36

[18] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 3

[19] Sidney and Beatrice, Breakup the Poor Law and Abolish the Workhouse, p. 4

[20] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 154

[21] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, p. 44

[22] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 53

[23] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, p. 44

[24] Sidney and Beatrice, Breakup the Poor Law and Abolish the Workhouse, p. 589

[25] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 32

[26] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 53

[27] Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare state, Fifth Edition, (the free press 1994) p. 54

[28] Pat Thane, Foundations of the Welfare State, (Longman group UK limited, 1982) p. 12

[29] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 20

[30] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, p. 49

[31] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 20

[32] Sidney and Beatrice, Breakup the Poor Law and Abolish the Workhouse, p. 16

[33] Michelle Higgs, Life in the Victorian and Edwardian Workhouses <http://www.michellehiggs.co.uk/Workhouse.htm> [Accessed 20^th March 2009]

[34] Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English, p. 529

[35] Boyson, The New Poor law in NE Lancashire 1834-71, p. 50

[36] Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare state, p. 185

[37] Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, p. 261

[38] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 129

[39] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 45

[40] Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, p. 7

[41] Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, p. 7

[42] Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, Children in English Society, p. 509

[43] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 274

[44] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 15

[45] Pat Thane, Foundations of the Welfare State, p. 293

[46] Pat Thane, Foundations of the Welfare State, p. 294

[47] Derek Fraser, The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century, p. 4

[48] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, pp. 2-4

[49] John Knott, Popular Opposition to the 1834 Poor Law, p. 34

[50] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 2

[51] Tillyard, English Town Development in the Nineteenth Century (Blackwell Publishing 1913) p. 547

[52] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 2

[53] Michael E Rose, The Poor and the City, p. 8

[54]Reading poor law Union and workhouse, England Workhouses <http://www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/england/berks/reading_workhouse.htm> [Accessed 21^st March 2009]

[55] Workhouses in the county of Essex, England Workhouses <http://www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/england/essex/essex_workhouses.htm> [Accessed 21^st March 2009]

[56] Nicholas C Edsall, The Anti Poor law Movement 1834-44, p. 14

[57] Workhouse quotes and quotations, ThinkExsist.com <http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/workhouse/> [Accessed 20^th March 2009]