AHC: No New Poor Law of 1834

[John Fredrick Parker]

With no PoDs prior to 1800, how can the changes to the British welfare system enacted by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 be prevented? If possible, I'd like something a little more substantive than just saying "prevent the 1830 uprising" or "change the debate surrounding the Royal Commission of 1832".

And with the given answer, what are the effects? How does this affect the evolution of British social policy, and subsequently the shape of the global industrial revolution and world history?

 

[Roger II]

Interesting! I don't know the effects but I wonder if either 1) a more stable source of grain imports, 2) a slower enclosure system(say enclosing common lands but giving users of said common lands first claim on use of the fields or giving out of common lands, or 3) economic theory deducing that cyclical unemployment is a thing more quickly, which would rather undermine the basic logic(you can't "Force" employment or assume people won't want it if you know for a fact that there is inevitably a fluctuating rate with the business cycle). In order to address criticism of the Speenhamland System there might be a different set of reforms. For example, a tax on employers in proportion to the relief drawn in order to reduce the burden on ratepayers and provide an incentive to raise wages so there is less need for relief. Possibly also a more advanced or sophisticated system of poor relief that for example extends to providing training or job assistance or which provides subsidies for specific use or housing.

I wonder if you could also tinker with Malthusianism being popular. It's one thing to have it accepted as such(and it's pretty inevitable), but someone could point out e.g. that it only applies in a closed system("yes technically we inevitably will have population grow faster than food supply but we also know that it is possible to import surplus foods from elsewhere) or that it assumes that no further ability to produce more food is found or to supply it more efficiently(for example, better transportation technology), or even some circumstance where increased income and education reduces reproduction,

 

[balthasargettysburg]

I did my senior year history seminar on this topic.

I gave Chadwick a lousy rating as human being and a mediocre rating as a government official.

His actual arguments for standardizing the organization and dispersal of charity were on the surface based on an unselfish Christian standard of mercy for the poor.

His actual model and method absolutely ensured that the standard funding and provision of charity would be minimal, voluntary, and local, regardless of the depth of poverty. Zero underwriting from the central government.

You want to change that? Have one powerful wealthy member of the House of Lords embrace the reformed law but demand provisions for adequate funding to be distributed per capita, regionally and locally.

(If you like this, great. If not, well, you're just a heartless bastard like Chadwick)

 

[Thomas1195]

You want to change that? Have one powerful wealthy member of the House of Lords embrace the reformed law but demand provisions for adequate funding to be distributed per capita, regionally and locally.

The problem is that only a bunch of Radical fringe wanted to do so.

 

[balthasargettysburg]

The problem is that only a bunch of Radical fringe wanted to do so.

A choice is a choice. One man with the more humane opinion and the social position and reputation and will to back it up might have stung the conscience of his nation at a crucial moment. What would make for a better POD?

 

[Thomas1195]

A choice is a choice. One man with the more humane opinion and the social position and reputation and will to back it up might have stung the conscience of his nation at a crucial moment. What would make for a better POD?

Well, at that time, Russell was the only plausible choice, even with his awful records in Ireland, as he was a more genuine supporter of social reforms in Britain than other Lords. And, during the 1830s, others were even worse.

Regarding three other leading statesmen, Peel and Disraeli was not yet significant, while Gladstone was still a reactionary.

 

[Reydan]

I think it depends on what you want the outcome to be here. If we are talking about preventing this specific Act passing, then that is possible, but if you are wanting the entire system of the New Poor Law to be waved away, that is much harder.

The problem is, essentially, that a change needs to happen. For both financial and ideological reasons any widespread system of outdoor relief [i.e. money paid to workers to supplement their wages] was unpopular in early c19th Britain. Workhouses, too, were on their way. York, for example, is already setting them up parish-by-parish in the late 1770s onward. A lot of the provisions of the New Poor Law, whilst reforming, were generally ''accepted'' by the powers that be as required.

There is a major problem of poverty with the swelling industrial revolution at the time, and the taxes levied on middle and upper class ratepayers were beginning to bite. But you've also got to remember that this is a system that was, and post1834 was still intended, to be administered by those who paid the tax in each location. So the chances for reform from either political side is slim.

Finally, whether you think Chadwick a monster or not [he really wasn't] this is the orthodoxy about poverty at the time. There are only two options, really, and they've already got one that isn't working [outdoor relief]. Thus indoor relief [the workhouse and more strict rules about funding generally] is the only real option available. All involved, pretty much, agreed that the poor needed to be supported and all involved, pretty much, also agreed that this needed to be administered locally and not by central government. If you thought otherwise you were a radical outlier, either right or left, and probably nowhere near the reins of power.

So, really, its a very difficult change to bring about if you want the reforms of the New Poor Law to be avoided. A political POD would be a temporary stop - the ideas were society-wide and so you'd need a much more involved and deeper POD that related to the social, cultural, and economic elements that brought about the New Poor Law.

 

[Roger II]

Yea, that's why I suggested changes in economic structures(limiting the damage done by enclosures in creating a larger number of landless, resource-limited, and impoverished peasants) and in intellectual structures(a more complex view of employment that starts from the assumption that unemployment is both a constant in the economy and fluctuate, getting rid of the Mathusianism used to justify the poor laws, or even a shift to a sort of proto-Kenysianism or "Clayianism" that allows for things like government support for the economy as useful).

 

[balthasargettysburg]

Laws to govern the economic functioning of England as a whole go back to the Middle Ages (the Corn Laws and the Enclosure Laws) were prime examples. It was not really that hard to admit that throwing the peasants off the land and forcing them to find work was possibly an ugly area where it would probably be best for the government to take a positive approach. THUS the original Poor Laws, outdoor relief, indoor relief, workhouse, and THEN the new Poor Laws. Grasp the pattern, take a stand: an Owenite approach way early, make the workhouses NICE, training USEFUL, good CARE, more EDUCATION for children. Not just more careful supervision, but a LORD announcing LORDS should pay BECAUSE they are responsible for the clean conscience of green and happy ENGLAND. MORE MONEY TO FIGHT MISERY. IN JESUS' NAME AMEN. (Was there not one such man in the House of Lords who could have done this?)