Poor Law Act 1601 Essay

Glasgow had three poorhouses: One in the city centre, Barhill in Springburn and Govan. The percentage of the public relying on the Poor Law relief, by 1900, was 2.5%. This may seem very little but this figure does not represent the number of people in Britain who were in poverty. Destitute people who accepted help from the Poor Law became “paupers” and automatically lost many civil rights such as the right to vote. By 1900 many critics of the Poor Law believed that it failed to deal with poverty adequately. In addition to criticism of the Poor Law, the evidence discovered from both Booth and Rowntree’s studies concluded that there was a large percentage of Britain’s population living in poverty. Charles Booth, a London businessman who doubted the claims of socialist that a quarter of the population lived in extreme poverty. Working with a team of researchers from 1886-1903, Booth’s work was based on hard, statistical facts, and not opinion. His book, “The Life and Labour of the people of London”, consisting of 17 volumes, showed that 25% of London’s population lived in extreme poverty. Much more than the socialists claimed. The second investigation into poverty was carried out by Seebohm Rowntree, in the city of York. After two years of research, he published a book in 1901 which showed that almost 30% of York’s population lived in extreme poverty. If York had such poverty problems as

Different attitudes to social welfare reforms from the 19th century onwards depended on what lifestyle a person was living in. If a person was wealthy, they enjoyed an easy life. However, on the other hand, if the person was poor then that would make their life harder and difficult to live. Any able-bodied poor person able to work did not receive help from the authorities. They only entered the workhouse because they were desperate. People within the workhouses lived in terrible conditions, overcrowded, poor hygiene. Another name given to the workhouse was ‘’the slums’’ (Tom, 2016). Strict rules were put into place. If rules were broken severe punishment would follow. Inmates of the workhouse were treated harshly. They all worked long hours

The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act changed the law that was already in place, to centralise the relief given, and bring in more regulations. Outdoor relief was abolished for the able-bodied, and workhouses were to be established in parishes, or within unions of parishes. Under the Act, ratepayers in each union or parish elected a board of guardians to supervise the workhouse and send reports to the Poor Law Commissioners, who were appointed by the government and responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Act across the countries. Furthermore, the Act aimed to create workhouses as a last resort, and make the regulations and conditions dismal enough

These remaining tenants threatened the lords to leave unless they made a new agreement. The landlords’ agreed and made an agreement where they reduced their labour services [ ], also, the rent decreased but not by a lot, for instance, a rent of certain land before the plague was 8d and it became 6d [ ] Regardless of all this, landlords all over Europe were having difficulty finding tenants and in keeping them [ ], that is because all the employees were refusing unless they were paid a higher wage while others preferred to beg instead of working [ ].Consequently, an agreement was passed ordering physically fit men and women under the age of 60 that do not live by trade or own land are obliged to accept offers of employment. Refusing the offer would result in their immediate arrest until accepted. [

These changes came about as a direct response to the rising numbers of paupers and pauperism. The poor laws, which consisted of outdoor relief, the workhouse and parish responsibility for the locally born, required contradictory responses to poverty: succour and repression, alms and forced labour. These dual directives which were implemented by church wardens and several of the substantial householders who served as overseers of the poor were a burden on both administrators and paupers alike who had to decide which person would be given relief, and the type of relief given. In addition, the poor law, which had been put in place during the sixteenth century by Elizabeth 1 was becoming outdated and expensive, as rising numbers of paupers were too great to maintain this as a viable option for the relief of poverty. By this time the poor rate accounted for one fifth of the national expenditure by 1830. This led to sustained call for a more centralised and uniform system which brought about the Poor Law Amendment Act of

What's more, there was a steady revision in the perception of caring for the poor. It became clear that society was shifting and there was more need than ever. The Elizabeth Poor Laws transpired for several centuries and is reflected as foundational in England to this day.

Even from today’s perspective, the NHS is regarded as quite possibly “the most beneficial reform ever enacted in Britain,” (Pugh, 2017, p. 363). This revolutionary health care system paid for much of the individual’s medical needs through an increase in taxes, although private practices and hospitals were still permitted. The Welfare State also enacted similar reforms in the field of education. Free lunches became available to students in what Americans would call elementary public schools. Secondary education, such as at a university, would also be paid for by taxes, and students would also receive a grant or maintenance fee, much like a small salary in return for their studies. Within the realm of family, these social reforms also provided old age pensions and allowances for families of multiple children. Although this increase in taxation was not necessarily beneficial, the goals and achievements of the Welfare State can hardly be understated.

I agree that the ideas presented by the Elizabethan Poor Law are still presented in current times. Although there has been a tremendous change in aspect to establishing social welfare programs, many people are hesitant about improving the programs. People are hesitant because they continue to believe that the poor aren't deserving of the help provided by the federal government. On the contrary, poverty is drastically increasing due to the loss of jobs and/or lack of resources. Even while working a tremendous amount of hours in one or even multiple jobs, people are unable to sustain for their family. This is proof that the federal government (and conservative followers) should increase aid to those in need rather than shaming the poor for being

New Right is referred to the 'pro-market, anti -state ideological perspective' which was associated with the Conservative government in the 1970's - 1980's. The New Right therefore begun to emerged during the 1970's in light of the economic crisis of 1973, and as a reaction to the rapid expansion of welfare state expenditure after the war. It was believed that Britain was in an economic crisis and had economically under-performed compared to its counterparts since the 2nd World War because of public growth and social welfare expenditure (George & Wilding, 1993; Alcock,1996). They believed their ideas regarding the welfare state were very essential' if Britain's economy was to survive

Poor Law was the why in which poor people of the 19th century got help to survive either by receiving money or recourses. Additionally, in the 19th century there was a prevailing emphasis on individualism and non-intervention by the state. The way in which they received help was either from the help of local parishes, churches or through self-help. Additionally, Poor Law was in place to help people who could not work due to health or disability, and these people were considered the ‘deserving’ poor.

The Poor Law was introduced because it was too much money to pay to look after the poor, so in hopes to take the poor off the streets and to stop money going to the poor the government introduced the law in 1834. The law was also put in place to embolden the poor to get back into work and support themselves, There was a law before 1834 called the "Old Poor Law" this was found to be insufficient because there was nothing in place to help the poor because even though they set up workhouses for the poor they didn't offer accommodation for the poor. There was an act passed in 1795 called "The Speenhamland System" which allowed employers to pay their workers exceptionally low wages during these years the middle and the upper classes were getting more angry because they were the ones paying for the poor who would avoid not going to or do any work.

1601 The Poor Law was introduced and clearly defined the responsibility of every parish to support those who were incapable of looking after themselves. This responsibility was limited to people born or defined as being 'settled' in a parish. Other people who did not fit these categories could be expelled from the parish.

Slavery was abolished years ago, but that doesn't mean the economic condition of today's poor working people has improved much over the years. People didn't have freedom under slavery; they couldn't pick which jobs they wanted, who to work for, how long to work, or who to marry. On the other hand, it was in the interest of their capitalist owners to feed, clothe and shelter them to keep them healthy and in good working condition – much like the way they treated their horses, machinery and other possessions. Poor people are paid a minimal amount to work in poor and oftentimes unsanitary and unsafe conditions. They are limited in their mobility – a few can afford to own, insure and maintain their own cars, and their social circles are often limited

In response a Royal Commission in 1832, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London, was delegated to audit the organisation of the Old Poor Law. The mandate controlling the relief of the poor in 1601. The Commission accumulated a mass of data from a group of Assistant Commissioners who visited parishes across the country. The commissioner's report took the view that neediness caused the poverty of people as opposed to money and social conditions. Overall the commission's conclusion was that the scheme was ineffective and uneconomical. The report made a progression of proposals which were to structure the new enactment that followed around the same time.

When the reform act emerged the working classes where dissatisfied as the act which promised so much delivered very little.