Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 - Problems With The Poor Law Amendment Act

Problems With The Poor Law Amendment Act

After 1834 Poor Law policy aimed to:

• Transfer unemployed rural workers to urban areas where there was work
• Protect urban rate payers from paying too much.

It was impossible to meet both as the principle of less eligibility made people search for work in towns and cities. Workhouses were built and paupers transferred to these urban areas. However, the Settlement Laws were used to protect rate payers from paying too much. Workhouse construction and the amalgamation of unions was slow. Outdoor relief did continue after the PLAA.

The board issued further edicts on outdoor relief:

• Outdoor Labour Test Order
• Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order

The implementation of the act proved impossible particularly in the industrial north which suffered from cyclical unemployment. The cost of implementing Settlement Laws in operation since the 17th century was also costly and therefore was not implemented fully – it often proved too costly to enforce the removal of paupers. The Commission could issue directives, however these were often not implemented fully and in some cases ignored this was to save on expenses (Darwin Leadbitter 1782–1840 was in charge of the commissions finances).

The PLAA was implemented differently and unevenly across England and Wales. One of the criticisms of the 1601 Poor Law was its varied implementation. The law was also interpreted differently in different parishes as each parish had different levels of poverty and different parishes had developed more than others leading to an uneven system. Local Boards of Guardians also interpreted acts of law to suit the interests of their own parishes, resulting in an even greater degree of local variation.