Do You Consider the poor law reform amendment Act to be the most important reform, of the Whig Decade of Reform, post 1832?

Following the Reform Act of 1832, which was given the prefix: "The Great...." (and with good reason for doing so) the people of Britain, who had voted in the Whigs for their advocation of reform, expected more of the same and so the expectation for more reform (although not for extremely radical reform due to the mainly Tory Lords' power) was high throughout the 1830s. The four main Acts in the first half of the 1830s, after the Reform Act of 1832, (the decade known for its reforms), all reformed different parts of a country which had changed drastically due to the Industrial Revolution, yet the governments had not kept up with this, and was in desperate need for help.

The first set the stage for more reforms and improvements of a new booming enterprise- the factories. The second finally ended the barbaric act of slavery, whilst the third attempted to help Britain's own poor. The fourth was seen by many as being a natural follow-on from the Reform Act: the reform of the Municipal Corporations.

In order to decide the most important reform, I must first decide how to assess the importance of an Act. There are: who it influences, Britain or abroad. Does it affect all the different classes of people, the people in the cities or those in the countryside and which people; adults, children, male, female. But I believe the most important is the Act's consequences in terms of leading on to a better future for the country, better similar reforms or its long, and short-term effects.

Some reform of the factories and textile mills were not a new idea, one had occurred before, but an impressive movement had grown up who felt very strongly about the matter, for example:

"I would rather see all my children dead and buried, and myself along with them, than see them employed in a mill under the present system". From 1830 onwards, in south-east Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, the factory operatives formed Short Time Committees to agitate for a ten-hour day for all workers, both children and adults. This Act not only forbade various children from working at all, or for long periods; but it also provided inspectors to check the law was obeyed, for the first time, which was an innovative idea, that would be used continually in the future. Similarly the Royal Commission which was appointed to investigate the matter was a first and future Commissions were set up to investigate most problems. However both were flawed at this stage:

"The Select Committees and Royal Commissions generally found what they set out to find, and the inspectors were so few in number (four) that the laws were easily avoided"; Years of Expansion by Scott-Baumann.

Unfortunately the Act provided problems without supplying answers, such as what would these children do if they were not working, but their parents were? How could anyone prove one's age? [1836 -the compulsory registration of births, marriages and deaths Act did help solve this problem]. Many families needed their children's income to support themselves; and some jobs children did adults could not do.

As Britain led the way industrially it was the first country to do this kind of thing -there was much more demand for it in England- but other countries soon followed. It affected the workers themselves, but also the factory owners and the upper classes in terms of prices and unions. Naturally it was not effective due to there only being 4 inspectors. It really only affected those in urban areas although those in the countryside were affected if they were thinking of moving to the cities.

The second part of the Act established education grants to educate the poor and children to reduce the dependence on the religion-based schools already in existence. But these were too small and even though factory owners were encouraged to give more training, this was rare and inexpensive. This was an important idea; and raised an idea which would become a focal point for many groups in later Acts: education for children, how much?, how long?, how expensive to set up? and so on. In addition they used shift, or relay, system of children to avoid the 'length of day' clause.

The factory Act led to better quality of working conditions, although limited and long-term was very successful and led to six more Acts during the nineteenth century as well as mines regulations Acts; which altogether were very effective. Short-term though, it was not effective; the idea of inspectors was new and an important step forward. At this time, child labour was compared to 'Yorkshire slavery' by R. Oastler, it was so bad. It is important to note that the Act only applied to textile factories. It was not until 1864 that factories in other industries were included in the Act. In fact it was this Act which to many was a disappointment in that the government used this Act to defeat another proposal in the Commons by Ashley in 1833 which would have been much more pleasing, especially for the Evangelicals. Thus this reduced the Act's importance. However the future factory Acts were definitely important and pleasing to everyone; and this one was an important stepping stone towards these others.

The trading of slaves had been prohibited in 1807 but slavery continued; especially as slaves' children were used as slaves, so it would never die out. There was also a lot of pressure against slavery by people such as Wilberforce and the Anti-Slavery Society, because of the moral issues involved; which is why it gained so much support, not just by the humanitarians and Evangelicals, but also by many of the people of

Britain. When the Act was passed it freed slaves but forced them to do a 7-year apprenticeship (to get to know the real world) which was effectively seven more years of slavery. It paid the slave-owners compensation. But there was already a labour shortage and the British feared that they would lose out to competition in the U.S.A and Europe, who had slaves and so lower prices. The compensation was too low and many people went bankrupt, similarly it led to a depression in the West Indies, whilst the £20 million paid out was a huge amount of money being spent elsewhere and not in Britain where it may have been better spent. It mainly, only affected the upperclasses and MPs who were involved in slavery but the rest of the country and humanitarians were for it. They were affected enough that they voted out the government at the next election, partly because of the huge amount of money which they wasted (they ended up in £37.5 million of debt), partly due to this Act. The Act also attempted to cut out the smuggling of slaves; but this still continued because there was not a strong enough government-led force to stop the smugglers, and they could not afford to set one up.

The added powers of allowing the British government to search ships for slaves were abused whilst Blacks continued to be exploited. It was effective in its aims (bar the explained other effects) and slavery was cut out in the vast British Empire. Public opinion in other countries meant they soon did the same, whilst after the seven years, its long-term effects were large. The economic problems were noticeable and may be why more reforms in the 1830s were not carried out: there was not enough money to do so. The nobles preferred laissez-faire techniques which this went against, so they complained; but it helped lead up to the Poor Law Amendment Act because it promoted helping those who could not help themselves.

The current system for aiding the paupers was supplied by the Parish whose members paid money to annually. Due to changing times the system had become ineffective. The agricultural Revolution led to the enclosure of land, which denied the labouring poor of their small pieces of land they needed to earn money. In parts of the South another system had developed with Outdoor Relief (which supplemented low wages with money; but led to lower wages and much money being 'wasted'), and indoor relief -which housed them in workhouses. The enormity of the problem was demonstrated in 1830-31 in the 'Swing Riots' (which began after another bad harvest), and which grew out of control and worried the factory owners. This Act was important because it affected everyone who paid for the poor to be looked after. They all demanded changes to save money. The last time the system had been looked at had been over 200 years ago (in 1601). It had classified the poor in three categories (those who could not find work, those who physically could not work, those who refused to work). The Spleenhamland system now meant that those with jobs were also receiving money, so it was vital that this was discontinued. The Act was unique, not because it established a commission to look into the problem, but because this commission's report became an immensely important document which was still relied upon up until 1929 for its excellent understanding of poverty (but it did not offer many good solutions as far as the public were concerned). The outcome was debatable. Outdoor relief was reduced whilst indoor relief continued but parishes were combined/split into unions for easier management of workhouses who were watched by paid officials (a development of the inspector idea used in the factory Act). Extremely controversially, the workhouses were made into very bad places to dissuade people from entering them. Humanitarians saw this as wrong as it branded the poor as criminals and humiliated them whilst others (such as Benthamites and many ratepayers) saw it as a success because the expenditure on poor rates was reduced. Many newspapers were critical and demonstrations took place because of this cruelty. However, officially it was a success, but only in the short-term because it neglected to solve the causes of the poor (i.e. why they were there in the first place). The South was quite lucky because of some good harvests, but the North suffered the worst because of a trade recession in 1837 and there were not enough workhouses. Unfortunately many of the Inspectors and Guardians were blamed and attacked. If some jobs had been created then it would have helped but they were not. In the long term it led to hospitals, homes, education and so forth, but in much later Acts (after 1865), which were needed because this one did not solve the problem.

The Act affected the poor directly and the government had to admit that there was a fault in the original system too. This was a big step but the Act did not end poverty, just reduce it slightly. Public opinion was often against it as the workhouses gained very bad reputations. Undeniably this was an important Act because of its huge consequences (mostly bad), but I believe this following Act was more important because it meant changes could be made at a local level, which meant the changes could be made to a specific problem in a specific area. This had been one of the criticisms of the New Poor Law Amendment Act: it worked quite well in some parts of the country but not in others. The Municipal Corporations Act would change this, because it gave the local councils the power to do what they felt was right for their council, so these actions would be more likely to succeed.

The Act took place three years after the reform of the voting system for the government; it did the same for the local boroughs. Many of which were 'fixed' and voting did not take place; the council members re-elected themselves (closed cliques); whilst the last distribution of boroughs was pre-Industrial Revolution and did not include 'new' towns. Once again a commission was established and the cliques were abolished; elections were made more often and with wider electorates (although as in 1832 the municipal franchise was still narrow and effectively excluded the working-class in the towns) and a police force became compulsory (this goes against laissez-faire, but due to the Metropolitan Police's effectiveness since 1829, few argued, whilst the Prisons Act of 1835 complemented this by overhauling the prison system). Although few argued, this term of the Act marks an important break away from laissez-faire and was regarded suspiciously abroad and by 'freedom fighters' at home who did not think the government had the right to take away their freedom, and argued in the press about what level of state intervention was acceptable. Towns could apply to be a borough and new social improvements were optional (after bad town conditions led to a huge epidemic of Cholera breaking out before the Act was passed), to try and solve the 'Condition of England Question' which it did not.

It was a success and more boroughs were established, voting became fairer and the ratepayers were given the choice to pay for improvements to their borough, thus making the new system more sensitive to the wishes of the ratepayers Unfortunately most chose not to and many say that the 'optional' part was a mistake. There was a big problem in industrial towns with social conditions and there were many Public Health Acts in the next 50 years or so to try and solve these problems and curb disease. The new process of becoming a borough was complicated, and also some cities chose not to. Its main aim was undoubtedly a success in that it allowed easier passing of reforms and enforcement of these, and it reduced bribery. It allowed for a less centralised system in Britain, which made the system quicker and more effective.

Apart from the births Act mentioned earlier, the government also initiated a few other smaller reforms to make the main four run more smoothly. These were: The Marriage Act and the Tithe Communication Act of 1836; the Limited Liability Companies Act of 1836 and the development of a Penny Post by 1840- which was an inspirational development which soon made a profit and greatly helped to improve communications throughout the country.

If I look at the main four I can judge which the most important one was, as the people thought at the time, by looking at which they most wanted. From what I wrote earlier, the people most demanded the New Poor Law Act, but this was also the one they were most disappointed with (along with the Factory Act), so here I cannot find an answer. All four of the acts have important long-term consequences and they, together, managed to affect all types of society in Britain, whilst the slavery Act also affected the rest of the World; and had the largest short-term impact. I believe this Act is not the most important because, important though it was, it was something which would have happened soon anyway, due to the public pressure throughout Europe especially. The Poor Law amendment act, although a step in the right direction, was unpopular at the time and not as effective as it might have been, had it been better. The factory Act was similar bur the idea only became effective later in the century when there were more inspectors and better education was established. While the Municipal Corporations Act was not radical it set up an efficient system for future reforms -which I believe is the most important. It is important to note that all these Acts had to be passed by the Lords in Parliament, who were generally land owning, Tory nobles. They often reduced the radicalism of the Acts to suit their interests more; whilst still giving the voters what they wanted to small degree. All four Acts had important consequences which is why the 1830s is known as the 'Whig Decade of Reform'.