3.4 OPPOSITION TO THE POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT
RUMOUR AND PROPAGANDA
Union workhouses were built far from the paupers seeking relief. Therefore, people believed workhouses were extermination centres in an effort to keep poor rate low.
The Book of Murder circulated which was thought to be work of the Poor Law commsioners. It was suggested that there was intentions of gassing the pauper children.
Those in Devon believed that the bread that was being handed out to paupers was poisoned.
Paupers believed that children over and above the first three in the pauper family would be killed.
People believed that workhouses were an attempt to lower the national wage bill and offer cheaper labour.
GENIUNE FEAR
Many people did not approve of the centralisation of the Poor Law. The commissioners were London based so they had no real understanding outside London.
Many people believed that getting rid of the Old Poor law would also erase the social contract between the rich and the poor.
Rural ratepayers believed that a workhouse programme would be more costly than outdoor relief.
Ratepayers in Northern and industrial areas, prone to cyclical employment believed that it would be to costly to build a workhouse to accommodate for them all.
PROTESTS IN THE RURAL SOUTH.
Local magistrates and clergy were unhappy about the centralisation of the poor Law commission and the fact there was no longer the traditional master and servant relationship.
In Buckinghamshire people took to the streets when they saw the paupers were being transported from the workhouse in Chalfont to the workhouse of Amersham.
- Special constables had to be sworn in and armed yeonmary were put on the street before they could be transported three miles to Amersham.
In East Anglia newly built workhouses were attacked, the one at ST Clements in Ipswich being badly attacked and officers were assaulted
While the paupers took to the streets those in higher positions used their power to impose the less elibigiblity rule less strictly.
-The more wealthy citizens used power to continue paying outdoor relief.
OPPOSITION IN THE NORTH
Guardians, Magistrates, mill and factory owners resented interference from Londoners as the Act was based on the rural south that had no relevance to them. Workshop factory and mill workers needed short-term relief not sending the whole family to the workhouse.
Those in the north also got behind the 10 hours movement to have hours in textile mills reduced to 10 hours a day.
There were Armed Riots in Huddersfield, Rochdale, Oldham and Bradford that were put down by local militia.
In Huddersfield the guardian George Tinker warned the commissioners in 1837 about introducing a Poor Law.
London troops were sent to quell the 1838 riots in Dresubury.
In Bradford in 1838 Assistant commissioner Alfred Power was attacked by the mob.
The Poor Law Amendment Act could not be implemented until 1877 in Todmordon.
RICHARD OASTLER
JOHN FIELDEN
Oastler was also concerned about the amalgamation of Parishes into unions as it would take away from the relationship with the giver and receiver of relief.
In 1838 Oastler encouraged people in Fixby to get involved in violence and sabbotage.
Richard Oastler had been a steward of Fixby and a supporter of the 10 hour movement he believed that Poor Law commissioners were too powerful with their abilities to provide cheap labour in the form of paupers.
-Word of his opposition reached the Poor Law Commission and Franklin Lewis approached Thomas Thornhill to calm the situation down.
-Oastler was eventually dismissed by by Thomas Thornhill, but he did not stop campaigning, until he was put in a debtors prison. But he was released 4 years after.
John Fielden entered the commons in 1832.
He voted against the Poor Law Amendment Act bill
He also worked as a member of the commons and was Voiceiferous in his criticisms of the Poor Law.
Fielden took advantage of his power as him and his brother were the owners of a cotton mill that was the largest employer in the area.
When they tried to implement the Poor Law Fielden threatened to close down the Cotton Mills unless the Guardians resigned.
The Guardians refused so 3,000 were sent out of work and violence and protests ensued.
This meant that the Poor Law Amendment Act became Law in 1877 in Todmordon.
HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE ANTI POOR LAW MOVEMENT? And How did it end?
It was effective in the short term, however the government did not repeal the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834).
The Government did make exceptions as in 1838 the General Prohibotary Act was set aside for Unions in Lancashire and Yorkshire. In these places the government were able to make provisions of the Elizabethan Poor Law 1601. Also a large amount of discretion was given when negotiating settlements.
The New Poor Law was easily established in Urban areas, however the Metropolitan-Anti-Poor Law association was set up but did not get traction.
Also the absence of violence did not mean acceptance as many Guardians ignored directives and amended them to suit their parish.
The Protests were short lived as it was an unwelcome change and the protests were disorgansied.
Even when the protests were more organised like in Yorkshire and Lancashire they were still limited in success.
The people who began to protest eventually became chartist
click to edit
WERE THE PRIORITIES OF THE POOR LAW MET?
Two important priorities was not met as the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) was interpreted differently by different Guardians.
In addition, Parishes did not enforce the settlement Laws enough so they continued paying relief even if the paupers were no longer living there. (Resident relief)