Talk:Poor Law Amendment Act 1834

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenezra.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm doing some research online on this subject, and most other websites seem to show this as the 1832 Reform Act, not 1834. Does anyone have an answer, or is the article incorrect? (update) ok, they're two different topics, my bad.

Might as well clarify this, in case anyone gets confused. You're thinking of the 1832 Reform Act, which altered the electoral system. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed claim

With the arrival of the Independent Labour Party in 1893, the working class finally had a voice in Parliament and began taking action to bring about yet more changes to the Poor Laws of Great Britain.

I've taken out the above as it is misleading as it is and cannot easily be reworked. The problem is the false connection between working-class representation and the ILP (many working-class voters before 1893 as well as several working-class MPs - also the ILP was not the Labour Party. What the latter attempted to do to reform the Poor Laws would be worth noting, as would the activities of Labour and socialist members of local Boards of Guardians, especially George Lansbury and others in Poplar. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish

I can't fathom out what on earth this is supposed to mean: The Commission's recommendations were based on two principles. The first was "less eligibility": that the position of the pauper should be less eligible (that is, less to be chosen) than that of the independent labourer. The "explanation" in brackets is hardly explanatory, either! Some rewording by someone who knows what they're talking about (and who can write clearly) is needed, please. Silverhelm 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The principle off less eligibility is hard to define at best, however in order to get an accurate idea of what it means, you must first look at the idea of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. This is the idea that those who needed to claim relief from the parish, and thus went into the workhouses, were grouped as being "undeserving" poor. Whereas, those who were able to stay out of the workhouse through legal means (for example having a job,) were classified as being the "deserving" poor. This leads directly into the principle of less eligibility which stated that the living conditions of those within the workhouse (the "undeserving" poor) should be worse than that off the worst person living independently outside the workhouse (the "deserving" poor.) Thus relief given (now in the form of workhouses) was now to be used as a deterrent to put off would-be "undeserving" poor and force them to be "deserving" poor.

Hope this helps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.43.23 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The above explanation seems a bit 'unreliable' shall we say. In contexts other than the Poor Law, the poor could be deserving or undeserving depending on their moral character, regardless of their employment status. As far as the Poor Law was concerned, the 'deserving' poor were those who were indigent (not merely poor) and therefore needed relief and were in that condition despite their best efforts and therefore deserved relief; the 'undeserving poor' were 'benefit cheats' in modern parlance - people who were spinning a yarn to get relief and enjoy a life of idleness at the ratepayers' expense when if they put their mind to it they could get a job like everybody else. . The principle of 'less eligibility' was that poor law authorities should ".. provide for those who are able to work, the necessaries of life, but nothing more, to keep them closely to work, and in all respects under such restrictions, that though no man who was really in want would hesitate a moment to comply with them, yet that he would submit to them no longer than he could help; that he would rather do his utmost to find work, by which he could support himself than accept parish pay". If it was more irksome to gain a livelihood by parish relief than by industry then the undeserving would stop attempting to claim relief Rjccumbria (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did it "really work"?

I have removed the following unsourced statement from the article:

The Poor Law amendmant act did not really work

In addition to being unsourced, this statement is incredibly vague. Why didn't it "really work"? Who says it "did not really work"? Without a reliable source the statement resembles an editor's personal opinion and not a fact that can be included at this time. Road Wizard (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Petersianism

Boyer (1990) mentions Peters extensively in Chapter 7, e.g. "Opposition to the implementation of the New Poor Law was strongest in local areas... such as the Yorkshire Town of Skipton. The intervention of the reverend of the parish, a certain Mark Peters, provided the flashpoint for the local dissent." (1990:195)

The "racist" remark (which does admittedly look a little weird in the quote incorporated in the section) originates from a speech where he was not just deriding the New Poor Law, but also local disagreement with plans to extend coverage to the few predominantly French immigrants of the town. Perhaps the 'racist' bit could be removed from the quote.

As for the date of the Craven Herald article, the Wikipedia article neglects to mention that a newspaper by the name of the 'Craven Herald and Pioneer' existed in a form of informally distributed pamphlet prior to its official founding date by Robert Tasker.

Hope this clears things up. 62.3.246.201 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Boyer's An Economic History of the English Poor Law, 1750-1850 (Cambridge University Press, 1990) yet I can see no mention of Mark Peters in it. I am removing this as I believe it is spurious.--Britannicus (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have chosen a more obscure book! Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. 62.3.246.201 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Less eligibility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. MRSC (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

---

This article is not much than a stub and is only discussed as one feature of a 19th Century law in Britain. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.