The nature of state provisions for the poor in the period c. 1830 - 1839 Essay Example for Free

The nature of state supply for the woeful in the period c. 1830 1839 EssayTo what goal were the changes in the surface of it of the electo pass judgment the key factor in determining the nature of state provisions for the pitiful in the period c. 1830 1839?In the years between 1830 and 1939, Britain causality saw great increase in the rate of legislation and the amount of government intervention in society, in particular concerning the aid of the misfortunate. At the same time, the size of electorate was ever expanding but does this mean to two factors are necessarily linked?1832 saw the Great remediate act, an act which extended the vote to all middle twelvemonth men, putting an increased amount of violence in their hands, in reflection of the greater political influence they now boasted. The middle class were high-and-mighty by their set the promotion of self help, thrift, sobriety and scientific approach all considered fairly contrary to qualities which th e work class were believed to possess (self help, thrift and sobriety, in particular). Two years sideline the reform act, in 1834, the poor law amendment act was introduced. The aging poor law had been under much attack, particularly from bighearted writers and social commentators of the time, such as Thomas Malthus and Jeremy Bentham. Malthus blamed the poor law for the evident population harvesting in Britain, in that nation were entitled to a greater amount of poor relief when they had a greater number of children.His solution to the problem was to see the abolition of the poor law, which would allow land owners (those who compensable the poor rates) to pay higher wages to their workers, to prevent them having to rely on convey of relief in the first place. With any luck, this would also discourage people from having as many children for the interest of money, hence tyrannical the rate of population growth and consumption of resources. Bentham wanted to see the poor car ed for by the National brotherly love Organisation. He also proposed industry houses, which would be the only centre by which people could access poor relief. The industry houses would be purposely tough, with strict discipline and long hours, in the hope of discouraging people from entering in the first place. Given that there would be no show updoor relief this was think to encourage people to apply the middle class principle of self help, and to find a mean out income beyond poor relief.The major problems with the old poor law focused around its increase cost, corruption within the system, and the demoralising affect of the Speenhamland system (where by the low wages of agricultural industrial plant would be subsidised in accordance to their number of children and the price of bread). The problems were approached by the Royal Commission on the paltry Laws, which began a few months prior to the 1832 great reform act. It recommended a new means of brass section of the poor l aw (including the grouping of parishes into unions, controlled by a Board of Guardians, overseen by a central Poor Law Commission), the abolition of outdoor relief, and the introduction of the workhouse test.These ideas very much reflected those of Jeremy Bentham, and generally promoted middle class value in particular, self help. However, given that the Royal Commission began some months before the middle class were enfranchised, it seems slimly less likely that the points of the Poor Law Amendment act were a takings of their influence. Furthermore, the leading commissioners were Nassau Senoir, a Malthusian, and Edwin Chadwick, a Benthamite given their position in the proceedings, it seems far more likely that their ideas are those which had more impaction on the investigation (i.e., the results of the investigation could have easily been picked at to meet with their beliefs).Throughout the mid-nineteenth century, it could be detect that there was a growing movement of self-he lp amongst the functional class, mainly revolving around Friendly Societies, Co-Operatives and Trade Unions. The henhouse began in 1844, and aimed to keep food prices down without compromising their purity. At the end of the year, profits were shared out amongst members via a dividend, so customers gained something in return for their expenditures. The Co-op was not a great use for the particularly poor notwithstanding, as full payments were indispensable at the time of purchase these people generally relied on tabs due to low and irregular income.Members of palsy-walsy societies and trade unions, generally speaking, would pay in a protected sum of money which they could then receive as benefits when ill, to protect then from having to turn to the poor law. Again, this required a regular income, due to the need to pay in money consistently. It seems very likely that these means of self help were a direct influence from the middle class perhaps members of the working class had seen the influence and status which the middle class had received as a potential consequence of their values? Also, the new poor law and the fact that people would want to avoid the workhouse if at all likely seems a viable reason for the new interest in self help. It seems perfectly possible however that these people could have picked up on such middle class values without the latter world enfranchised anyway.In reward for their efforts, skilled artisans received the vote in 1867, with the second reform act. This compose left the mass of the working class without the vote, and was likely due to the fact that skilled artisans were the only members of the working class with a steady enough income to pay into friendly societies, trade unions or co-operatives. The 1867 wasnt entirely support however some leading figures considered it power in the hands of the masses, and that it would throw the scum of the community to the surface. However, following the reform act, many changes w ere made and legislations passed, including the compulsory 1875 universal health act and the 1870 bringing up act, amongst others, all transport about changes which would improve the conditions of working class bread and butter, along with the peoples chances for the future.Links between poverty and external factors were universe established, government intervention was increasing, and there was a broader electorate to now appeal to. However, this growing electorate was not the only indigence after part these changes. Scientific uprisethroughs were occurring, such as the establishment of the germ theory, which gave much of the basis for the 1875 compulsory public health act. The national efficiency debate was sparking concerns to the general condition of the nation, a problem particularly highlighted by the number of volunteers who had to be rejected from aiding in the Boer war due to their poor health. Foreign competition saw rise to concerns over Britains frugal health and weak men with a slump in trade, and the confidence of public figures such as Charles Dickens and Henry Mayhew on the difficulty of working class life gave a very human aspect to the problem.It seems that really, the now larger electorate was not the main force behind these legislations yet, they were the easiest way to appeal to working men. It may just be considered as a fortunate consequence that these somewhat essential legislations appealed to the working class and their needs. The government also realised that taking these measures would help to break the apparent poverty cycle when people fell ill due to the poor conditions they lived in, they could not work, dipping them and their families into poverty. Consequently, the workforce became weakened, which by no means aided Britains dwindling parsimony. It was essentially in the governments interest to pass these legislations, for the sake of the country, not just appeal to the working class voters.In 1884, the vote was ex tended further into the working class, resulting in 1/6th of all men having the vote. The 1880s and 90s were a period of great economic problems and fairly high unemployment, and issue which was extending to skilled and respectable workers, not just the casual workers in society. This was a consequence of Britains pattern of trade slumping, and the inadequacy of the poor law in dealing with such a problem led to an overflow in the workhouses, and many people with no means of relief. Still ordinary in society was the national efficiency debate, with Britains consistently weak workforce and comparatively weak economy in comparison to nations such as Germany and the USA. Around this time, there was also an ever-growing awareness as to the causes of poverty, highlighted by the works of Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, whos work into the extent of poverty in cities (and that for many people, their situation was caused through no breakage of their own) very much highlighted the exten t of poverty, even beyond what people already expected. 1906 saw the Liberals come into power for the first time in 20 years, and consequently, the passing of many new legislations and reforms.These included another education act, labour exchanges act, trade boards act and the old age pensions. Given the minimal increase in the size of the electorate in 1884, it seems unlikely that this was the motive at all behind the Liberal reforms, particularly with much larger threats pressuring for change e.g., the looming threat of socialism in Britain, the mass unemployment Britain was facing, the national efficiency debate and the desire to retain in responsibility. There was also the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws of 1909 to consider, which between its minority and majority reports produced the recommendations which approximately likely lead to the reforms for change in provisions towards children and the elderly. The Liberal reforms brought about many improvements for these groups, with the old age pension and provision of meals and medical inspections act in education, and the National Insurance act of 1911 provided a means of sick pay and medical cover for workers much like a national friendly society, of which all workers would have to pay into. For as much controversy as this caused, it was a big cadence by the Liberals in facing poverty.Beyond this time, the size of the electorate was not altered by any means of reform, yet quite dramatic changes towards provision for the poor took place this included alternations to the age at which the OAP could be received, the unemployment act (which extended the national insurance scheme), the effective destruction of the poor law with the Local political relation Act, the establishment of Public Assistance Committees to aid the able bodied poor, and the means test. Given that there was no change in the size of the electorate, there is no means by which that could be responsible for these changing provisions for the poor, they were mostly consequence of problems throughout society at the time, such as the inadequacy of the poor law as a welfare system in the 20th century, the mass unemployment throughout Britain and the neglect of benefits available for the most vulnerable groups in society (e.g., widows, the elderly and orphans).It seems fair to say that, although their choices would have influenced who came into office and consequently, the policies that would be passed, the changing size of the electorate had a minimal part to play in changing provisions for the poor. The continuously changing external factors which pressured for change, advances in beliefs and knowledge and the work of prominent figures appear to have had the most profound effect on legislation and reform, and it seems that the changing legislation simply appealed to the needs of the changing electorate by fortunate consequences. It would seem that it was more the governments interest to tackle major issues such as une mployment and threats of socialism, as hostile to appealing to the requirements of the electorate concerning poor relief, yet the tackling of these issues simply led to improvements in this area also. The varying needs and requirements of the electorate themselves had smaller direct influence over government policies at any point.