Neil Young Y4515745

To what extent did the operation of the New Poor Law reveal tensions between local

prerogatives and the national state?

The enactment of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was intended as a major change.

For the first time Central Government, in the form of the Poor Law Commission, would have

oversight of the way local boards of guardians administered the relief of the poor. This essay

will investigate the way in which these changes were implemented in the West Riding of

Yorkshire and how local guardians in the Riding attempted to adapt the edicts of the

Commission to suit their purposes better. It will also examine local resistance to the

implementation of the law by the anti-Poor Law movement, overseers, and guardians. It will

explore the various methodologies by which these local groups attempted to deal with this

imposition of centralised power.

An examination of primary and secondary sources was undertaken to evaluate the

effectiveness of efforts by both the local groups and the Commission to promote their

position. This essay will argue that there were flaws in the powers given to the Commission

that the local guardians exploited for their own ends. It will also contend that local issues,

such as politics, were often far more important to the officers implementing the New Poor

Law than directives from London. It will describe how, due to the continued resistance in the

West Riding, the area was seen as a special case by the Commission, forcing them, and their

successor agencies, to allow local discretion in what was supposedly a national system.

Finally, the work will reveal that, while some form of New Poor Law was eventually

instigated across the Riding, it possessed a local flavour influenced by a specifically Northern

1
Neil Young Y4515745

ideal of the relief of the Poor, and in particular the workhouse that was at the heart of the

system.

By using data contained within the Poor Law Commissioner’s Report of 1834, historians

studying the implementation of the New Poor Law originally argued that it saved the public

relief system from the excesses of the Old Poor Law.. Continued acceptance of what Tawney

described as an “influential and wildly unhistorical document” distorted the history of the

Poor Law in England and Wales.1 In the latter part of the twentieth century, historians began

to examine the lived experiences of paupers, concentrating on what their lives could explain

about the operation of the New Poor Law.2 At the same time, historians recognised that local

history could significantly add to the corpus of knowledge, with Englander writing in 1998

“there is no single history of the New Poor Law but instead several histories of .... regional

practices”.3 Most recently Shave re-examined the way in which poor law policy

implementation was shaped by various stake holders.4

The first tension between the national ambitions of the New Poor Law of 1834 and local

concerns was a particularly strong and well organised anti-Poor Law movement. A grand

meeting took place on Hartshead Moor in 1837, with even the pro-New Poor Law, Liberal

press conceding that one hundred thousand people had been in attendance.5 This movement

was heavily involved in resisting the introduction of the New Poor Law in the West Riding.
1
Mark Blaug. “The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the Making of the New,” The Journal of Economic History,
23.2 (Cambridge University Press 1963.): 151–84
http://dx.doi.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.1017/S0022050700103808 [Accessed 28/10/2018]
2
Sarah Lloyd “Pauper Policies: Poor Law Practice in England, 1780–1850” in, Cultural and Social
History,15:3,2018, 454-455,DOI: 10.1080/14780038.2018.1470113 [Accessed 28/10/2018];
3
David Englander. Poverty and Poor Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Britain 1834-1914: From Chadwick to
Booth. (London Longman 1998) 85.
4
Lloyd. “Pauper Policies”.
5
“OPPOSITION TO THE NEW POOR LAW” in The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, England), Saturday, May 20,
1837.

2
Neil Young Y4515745

However, they continued to impede the operation of the New Poor Law, even after the Poor

Law Commission had forced the creation of new unions.6

The law did not cover those places that formed unions under Gilbert’s act of 1782.7 The Poor

Law Commission was empowered only to perform inspections of workhouses, and to ensure

that each parish paid its fair share into its union.8 The aim of the Commission was the

conversion of Gilbertine Unions to ones under the New Poor Law; however, this required the

consent of the existing board of guardians. In the West Riding, the guardians of the Gilbertine

Unions surrounding Leeds refused to give this consent and the local assistant commissioner

had no power under the Act to force them to do so.9 Only the abolition of Gilbert’s Act in

1869 would bring these unions into the new system.10 This exposes that flaws in the act of

1834 allowed local representatives to rebuff and ignore the will of the national agency.

The Local Act of 1809, covering the Township of Leeds, was a simple modification of the

Old Poor Law. 11 Despite repeated attempts of the local assistant commissioner, including one

voided election, it was not until November 1844 that the Poor Law Commissioners were able

to get Leeds to introduce an elected board of guardians, ten years after the enactment of the

supposedly universal New Poor Law. That it took so long to take the first step in introducing

6
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 59-61.
7
T Frankland Lewis, John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The First Annual Report of the Poor Law
Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1835) 44.
8
Unknown Author. An Act for the Amendment and Better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in
England and Wales 1834. (London. Eyre and Spottiswood 1834.)
9
Nicholas C Edsall. The Anti-Poor Law Movement 1834-1844. (Manchester. Manchester University Press
1971.) 133-134. Englander. Poverty and Poor Law Reform. 14.
10
Graham Rawson. The Experience of Poverty: People, Policy and Agency in Mid-Nineteenth Century Leeds
and its Environs. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Leeds 2017) 38
11
Sir George Nicholls, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The Ninth Annual Report of
the Poor Law Commission. (London. W Clowes and Son 1843) 20. Sir George Nicholls, Sir George Cornewall
Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The Eleventh Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London. W
Clowes and Son 1845) 29.

3
Neil Young Y4515745

the New Poor Law to Leeds was testament to the fact that the local guardians lacked

incentive to abandon the status quo and that there were no consequences to their

recalcitrance.12

The adoption of the New Poor Law in Leeds was primarily driven by local rather than

national concerns. The workhouse board was an important political prize, with Tories and

Liberals controlling differing blocs.13 The change to an elected board of guardians was driven

by Liberals who wanted a new workhouse. However, the vestry and ratepayers, who

controlled expenditure, would not sanction this. The New Poor Law transferred financial

oversight to the board of guardians, allowing Liberals to potentially bypass the vestry.

In Todmorden Union, spanning the border of the West Riding and Lancashire, the election of

the board of guardians was impeded by local anti-Poor Law campaigners led by the area’s

major employer and MP, John Fielden. His group was able to gain the support of the local

overseers, who were organising the election. They refused to send out the necessary

paperwork to ratepayers in two of the Union’s townships. This prevented the election of

guardians and allowed Fielden to argue that the board was not competent because it did not

cover the entire Union.14 This victory against the interests of the national state set the scene

for further clashes across the Riding.

Concurrently, Fielden encouraged his workers to boycott the businesses of those guardians

who were elected, thus lowering the morale of those in the Union who were in favour of the
12
Derek Fraser. “Poor Law Politics in Leeds 1833-1855” in Publications of the Thoresby Society Vol 15.(Leeds
The Thoresby Society 1971) 27-34.
13
Fraser, Poor Law Politics, 25.
14
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 143

4
Neil Young Y4515745

New Poor Law. At the meeting in July 1838, the guardians were protected by all the

magistrates of the Union, as well as constables and a full squadron of cavalry. This show of

support enabled the pro-Poor Law guardians to ignore Fielden and push through the agenda

of the Commission.15 In response. Fielden again used the overseers to withhold funds from

the board. This disregard for the edicts of the New Poor Law was challenged by the Poor Law

Commission. It took the overseers to court for ignoring their duties; and, although convicted

in 1838, they continued to resist by refusing to pay their fines.

Tensions escalated when constables from Bradford came to arrest the intractable overseers; a

mob released from work at one of Fielden’s mills thrashed the constables and forced them to

retreat. The local magistrate did nothing to support the constables, putting local pressure

ahead of the national law. A few days later, Fielden’s supporters rampaged through the

Union, sacking the houses of pro-Poor Law officers. This was a step too far for the national

state. The Union was placed under “military occupation” effectively forcing it to comply with

the introduction of the New Poor Law.16 Thus the greater force applied by the national state

triumphed over the efforts of the local anti-Poor Law movement.

To prevent overseers being used to impede the New Poor Law in future, the Poor Law

Commission pressured boards of guardians to appoint assistant overseers. These were

salaried staff under board control whose job was to help the overseers collect the rates. As

they were appointed by the board, they could be relied on to ensure the proper operation of

the Poor Law if overseers resisted. Responsibility for board of guardians’ elections was

shifted to the board clerk, successfully removing part of the power the overseers could use

15
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 148.
16
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 157-160

5
Neil Young Y4515745

against them.17 In this way the national government, via the Commission, used legislation to

assert control over local areas and averting further protests.

In Bradford, the anti-Poor Law movement attempted to block the crucial appointment of a

clerk. Here they were led by Peter Bussey, a firebrand publican and would-be revolutionary,

who recognised that the Bradfordian public already opposed the New Poor Law and just

needed a push in the right direction.18 Upon hearing that Alfred Power, assistant

commissioner for the West Riding, would be attending the meeting at which a clerk would be

appointed on the 30th of October 1837, Bussey paid for a local bell-man to call upon those

opposed to the New Poor Law to gather outside the courthouse demanding entry to the

meeting. That such a crowd was mobilised with very little effort indicated the level of tension

in the town over the imposition of the New Poor Law.

Upon seeing locals demanding entry, Power suggested to the board of guardians that the

meeting be relocated. But as he could not force them it went ahead. The room was full of

workers who gave “exasperations against the law and the agents employed in carrying it into

effect”.19 Power’s lack of authority, and desire of local guardians to be accessible to their

constituents, combined to allow the intimidation of guardians, however this did not stop the

appointment of a clerk showing that the presence of the assistant commissioner was support

enough for already pro-Poor Law guardians.

17
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 165.
18
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 62.
19
T Frankland Lewis, John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law
Commissioners (London. C Knight & Co. 1838)

6
Neil Young Y4515745

After the meeting, Power, as the embodiment of the will of the Poor Law Commission, came

under physical attack with umbrellas, stones, and mud being chased through the streets to the

door of his hotel. Local constables claimed not to have seen or heard anything of this attack

despite it taking place right outside the courthouse. This suggests that they either agreed with

the protestors or did not wish to risk their relationships with their fellow Bradfordians for

Power.20 This violence was an expression of local anger towards the edicts of the Poor Law

Commission and Power, as their representative, was a convenient target for that expression.

Power called upon the Commission to ask the Home Office for members of the Metropolitan

Police and troops to ensure the safety of the guardians and allow them to implement the New

Poor Law. When a troop of cavalry was brought into the town, on the 20th of November, the

fury of the mob expanded from attacking Power to include the newly appointed clerk and the

board of guardians in their attacks. The cavalry used their sabres and carbines to disperse the

mob. Cowed by the display of force by the state, the anti-Poor Law movement in Bradford

was never again able to threaten the power of the law.21

In Huddersfield, it was the guardians themselves who refused to appoint a clerk on a number

of occasions. Whilst furious that he could not force them to do so, Power saw that local

popular opinion was on the side of the guardians and not the Commission. He issued a

warning to the guardians ahead of a meeting on the 5th of June 1837, indicating weakness on

the part of the representatives of the national state when faced with local obstruction.

20
Lewis et al. The Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners
21
Lewis et al. The Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners.

7
Neil Young Y4515745

The Huddersfield anti-Poor Law movement called for supporters to assemble en masse to

show their support for the stance by the guardians against the commission. Ten thousand

people attended, led by Richard Oastler, a local Radical; this crowd chased the guardians

from the workhouse to a local tavern. The local magistrates refused to intervene and Oastler

was able to leverage the crowd in order to gain access to the board meeting. The board,

confronted by an angry mob, placed itself “under the protection of Richard Oastler” and

decided not to appoint a clerk. The threat of violence was an effective tool in the arsenal of

local campaigners and blunted the ambitions of the Poor Law Commission.22

Against the wishes of the majority of the board, the Poor Law Commission attempted to use

the few pro-Poor Law guardians to create a quorum and push through the appointment.

However, the national body’s will was thwarted as they could not find enough guardians

willing to stand against local pressure. In the face of repeated local resistance, the Poor Law

Commission ordered a meeting at a tavern and arranged for the attendance of cavalry.

However, the guardians realised that the name of the tavern was wrong on the order and

declared it void.23 This demonstrates the fact that, without aid from cooperative locals, the

Commission could not enforce its will.

In the middle of this impasse came a general election, one in which Oastler stood as a

candidate for Huddersfield. He made opposition to the New Poor Law a central plank of his

campaign; when it became clear that he had been defeated, local Whigs were pelted with

stones. Subsequently, Oastler led a faction from Huddersfield to the election hustings held in

Wakefield. They joined approximately thirty thousand other anti-Poor Law campaigners from

22
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 93-99
23
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 93-99.

8
Neil Young Y4515745

across the Riding. This group entered into street brawls with bands of Whig supporters,

although fighting had ended and speeches resumed by the time troops arrived.24 No politician

in the West Riding could ignore these violent expressions of popular opinion, making local

MPs less likely to support the Commission’s efforts both in their constituencies and at

Westminster.

Unable to gain local support, the Poor Law Commission abandoned its efforts to force a clerk

on Huddersfield for the rest of 1837.25 Attempting to solve the problems, Power colluded

with the Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, who appointed more pro-Poor Law magistrates and

brought in two full troops of cavalry ahead of the first meeting of 1838. Although Oastler and

his supporters assembled, eventually they realised that the government held the upper hand.

In the end, the guardians appointed a clerk by a small margin.26 Once again the superior

forces of the national state, both military and judicial, allowed it to triumph over local interest

groups.

The Huddersfield board was split into pro- and anti-Poor Law parties, each of which

attempted to interfere in the election of guardians. In collusion with assistant commissioner

Power and, through him, the Poor Law Commission, the pro-Poor Law group controlled the

board clerk, repeatedly refusing votes of guardians over technicalities. When this malpractice

was reported, the complaints were dismissed out of hand. In retaliation, the anti-Poor Law

guardians seized the minute books of the Union and set up with their own clerk and

chairman. The Commission could not force the reinstatement of the previous board, as it was

24
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 99.
25
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 99.
26
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 113-115

9
Neil Young Y4515745

outside its remit, and had no choice but to compromise due to the local situation.27 This

demonstrated the fragile nature of national control over localities.

These events in Bradford and Huddersfield revealed that a major problem in implementing

the New Poor Law was that the local machinery for doing so could be easily influenced by

local prerogatives. The magistrates, the constables, and the troops of the local yeomanry were

all local men who had to live alongside the protestors. All three groups were far more

susceptible to the machinations of local politics and popular opinion than the Poor Law

Commission required in order to effect change.28

Even where local law enforcement was pro-Poor Law, they lacked the resources to deal with

the large crowds mobilised by the anti-Poor Law movement. For example, during the riot of

October 1837, Bradford had only four constables, yet they were loath to call in help from

central government.29 For its part, central government was at first reticent to get involved in

keeping law and order except as a last resort. The incendiary events in Huddersfield and

Bradford changed that and the garrisoning of troops throughout the West Riding showed the

desire of the national state to prevent violence.30

After Leeds elected its first board, the Tory and Radical guardians clashed with the mostly

Liberal overseers regarding office space. They refused to build a new workhouse, partly on

the grounds that it would give the overseers new offices. 31 The existing workhouse in Leeds

27
Edsell. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 153-155.
28
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 103.
29
Lewis et al. The Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners.
30
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 113-115
31
Fraser, “Poor Law Politics”. 35-39.

10
Neil Young Y4515745

was unsuitable to the demands of the New Poor Law; by 1844 it was over two hundred years

old and had not had a major extension in over one hundred years. The genders could not be

classified and separated, as per the act of 1834. It was unsanitary, overcrowded, and

notoriously lax in its discipline.32 This was a far cry from the ordered, disciplined world of

the ideal workhouse. Liberals appealed to the Poor Law Commission, but were unable to

force the guardians to build a new workhouse. This exemplified how petty local politics was

more influential on the implementation of the New Poor Law than the directives of the

commission.

The Leeds guardians had no choice but to continue with out-relief for adults, but did comply

partially with the Poor Law Commission’s orders to give relief in kind. They provided bread,

clothing, unworked cloth, and furniture to paupers who required them, but the vast majority

of relief continued to be as payments of money. The guardians asked the relieving officers to

investigate “those receiving out relief for the consideration by the guardians”. But this was

only lip service to the tenets of the New Poor Law, as after the investigation they decided to

“continue the payments of the outdoor poor at the agreed sums”.33 This was due to the nature

of the industrial paupers found in Leeds, who might be employed only temporarily or reliant

on piece-work from the factories. This shifting nature of the urban poor made institutional

relief neither appropriate nor possible. This local situation was recognised by the guardians in

a way the commission in London was unable to comprehend.34 Continued disobedience was

an expression of the clash between the centralised demand for uniformity and the desire of

the guardians for flexibility to apply solutions to local problems.

32
Fraser, “Poor Law Politics”. 34.
33
Unknown Author. Leeds Poor Law Guardians Minute Books 1844-1845. 7
34
Fraser, “Poor Law Politics”. 39.

11
Neil Young Y4515745

By refusing to build a workhouse, Tories were able to sell themselves to voters as protecting

the poor of Leeds from the worst excesses of the New Poor Law.35 The people of Leeds

responded favourably to this stance; Tories retained their majority on the workhouse board

until 1850, thus able to put off building a workhouse until 1859.36 The desire of guardians for

re-election, and voter antipathy to the expense of a new workhouse, trumped any pressure

applied to the guardians by the Poor Law Commission.

This inability of the Poor Law Commission to force any boards of guardians to build new

workhouses became a huge barrier to their attempts to enforce any measure of uniformity

across the Poor Law System. In fact, “during the early years of the Poor Law Commission …

unions were far busier closing old workhouses than opening new ones” as the ones they had

were unsuitable for the purposes of the New Poor Law.37 In 1848, the Commission redoubled

its efforts to persuade the unions of the West Riding to build new workhouses and to use

them as in other areas of the country. A preliminary assessment of the situation regarding

workhouses in the West Riding showed that only one of twenty unions either had plans to

build, or already had built, new workhouses. The rest of the Riding’s unions rejected the

advice of the Commission to do so.38 The county was moving further away from the model

the Commission wished to implement, exposing its incomprehension of the northern

situation.

At the heart of this local reticence was a particularly northern concept of the workhouse: that

it was a place of refuge for the aged, sick, and orphaned. The New Poor Law demanded that
35
David Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law” in The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century. Edited by David
Fraser (London, McMillian 1976) 138.
36
Fraser. “Poor Law Politics”. 39, 43.
37
Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law”. 133.
38
Edsell. The Anti-Poor Law Movement. 221-224. www.workhouses.org.uk [Accessed 28/10/2018].

12
Neil Young Y4515745

inmate families should be separated and kept isolated from the outside world, which was

anathema to the way West Riding workhouses operated. The Todmorden and Dewsbury

unions rejected these regulations as alien to the North. In both unions, the existing

workhouses were far from the ideal designs the Commission promoted. In Todmorden Union,

four of the six workhouses ran without the mandated supervision from a workhouse master

and the Dewsbury Union workhouse was unable to be adapted to suit the new regime.39 This

fundamental difference of opinion about the use of workhouses was a major strain on the

relationship between local guardians and the Commission.

As the Commission was unable to force unions to build workhouses, the assistant

commissioner for the area usually entered into negotiations with the board of guardians to

attempt to persuade them to do so. Boards often prolonged these negotiations in order to

make as few concessions towards the Commission’s demands as possible. In the Todmorden

Union, the combination of the unsuitability of the existing structures, as well as the resistance

from the board of guardians to build a new one, led them to threaten “to dispense with the

workhouse system”. Remarkably, the Commission was routed and Todmorden became a

Poor Law union without a workhouse, illuminating the strain between the original spirit and

letter of the New Poor Law and the financial situation and capability of the Todmorden

Union.40

One of the central tenets of the New Poor Law was that of limited eligibility. This was meant

to end the out relief to the Able-Bodied pauper, especially the Able-Bodied Male. Only the

“Impotent” poor, i.e., the sick, elderly, widows, and orphans, would be eligible for relief
39
T Frankland Lewis, John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Third Annual Report of the Poor Law
Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1837) 33-57.
40
Edsall. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 221-224.

13
Neil Young Y4515745

outside the workhouse.41 Instead the Able-Bodied pauper was supposed to engage in

meaningful work within the workhouse in order to be given relief. However, as early as 1838,

the Poor Law Commission had relaxed this requirement, instead ordering guardians to

“determine the kind of work to be performed…either in or out of the workhouse” and

allowing them to control “the amount and nature of the relief to be given” in cases of out-

relief.42 In practice across the West Riding, and other northern areas, out relief continued as

before for most paupers, including the able-bodied.43 The guardians of Leeds did send some

able-bodied paupers to work in a local stone-yard, but this was because it was “more

advantageous” to the ratepayers rather than due to any direction from the Commission.44

These limited compromises showed attempts on both sides to defuse tensions between the

local realities of the guardians and the ideals of the Commission.

After the attempted introduction of the Labour test into the West Riding in 1843, unions used

loopholes in the rules to continue paying out relief. In response, the Commission ordered

union auditors to disallow the payments, which led to a campaign of disobedience by

guardians. Both the Bradford and Halifax unions attempted to wreck the application of the

test by expanding the various exception clauses to cover as many paupers as possible. This

resistance forced withdrawal of the Labour test in both unions, with the understanding that it

would be reintroduced if the number of able-bodied paupers receiving out-relief ever grew

too high.45 In what was a clear victory for the local guardians, the test was not re-introduced.

41
Englander. Poverty and Poor Law Reform. 11-12.
42
T Frankland Lewis, John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law
Commissioners. (London. Charles Knight and Company 1838)
43
Sir George Nicholls, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The Eighth Annual Report
of the Poor Law Commission. (London, W. Clowes and Son 1842). 7.
44
.Poor Law Minute Books 1844-1845. 26
45
Edsall. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 246-249.

14
Neil Young Y4515745

For example, in the Bradford Union in July 1848, of the 1,397 Able-Bodied Males receiving

relief, only one was in the Union Workhouse.46

Another attempt was made in 1852 to introduce the test to the West Riding. Once again co-

ordinated resistance by the boards of guardians led to watering down the test, with local

guardians still retaining discretion over payments of out-relief.47 This concession meant that

the labour test generated little impact, as shown by the fact that never less than 85% of the

Able-Bodied paupers in the Bradford Union were on out relief between 1858 and 1871.48 The

needs of the paupers of the northern industrial towns promoted disobedience in the guardians,

and they repeatedly refused to bow to the Commission’s frustrated desires for a national

solution to out-relief.

One of the major reasons for this continuation of out relief was the inability of the Poor Law

Commission to force unions to build new workhouses and the unwillingness of guardians to

build them. For example, in 1848 the Bradford Union only had enough space for 260 inmates

in its Workhouses, having closed four of the six that had been operational within the Union

when it was founded.49 In Leeds, the number of out relief cases actually increased after it

adopted the New Poor Law in 1844.50 In reality no workhouse could cover a large industrial

town during the times of highest unemployment and, even if one large enough was built, it

would stand empty the vast majority of the time, thus local guardians were loath to construct

them despite the urging of the Commission.

46
Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law” 128-149.
47
Edsall. The Anti Poor Law Movement. 255-259.
48
Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law” 128-149.
49
Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law” 128-149.
50
Unknown Author. Leeds Poor Law Guardians Minute Book 1851-1852.

15
Neil Young Y4515745

As late as 1912, the local government board, at that time charged with the administration of

the Poor Law, noted that “outdoor relief continued for the able-bodied at the discretion of

local officers”, although by this point they had also noted that “the circumstances of all

unions are not the same” and this local discretion had been co-opted into the national

system.51 This adoption by the national body reduced tensions between it and local

counterparts.

In 1929, the Local Government Act removed boards of guardians and replaced them with

unelected public assistance committees appointed by the local council. This was met with no

resistance from the guardians, and councils appointed people with experience, usually former

guardians anyway, who continued using their discretion as before.52 This showed that the

ability to deal with situations in a locally sensitive manner prevented resistance to the

national agenda.

The Poor Law Commission disapproved of the practice of parishes paying other Unions to

look after so-called non-resident poor, both due to its difficulty to control and the fact that

many such arrangements were between local boards of guardians themselves rather than

being brokered by a central authority. These were paupers who claimed relief in a union in

which they had not achieved settlement and could represent a large proportion of those

receiving relief. For example, between 1839 and 1846, approximately 20% of those covered

by the Poor Law in the West Riding were non-resident poor.53 The needs of the West Riding

51
Unknown Author. Law Relating to the Relief of the Poor 2nd Edition. (London. Poor Law Publications
Limited. 1924) 12, 70.a
52
M.A. Crowther. The Workhouse System 1834-1929. (London. Batsford Academic. 1981) 109.
53
Ashforth. “The Urban Poor Law” 128-149

16
Neil Young Y4515745

towns for a readily available workforce meant that they pulled in workers from other parts of

the country and it was in the interests of the board of guardians to broker bilateral deals in

spite of the disapproval from the Commission.

In 1846, the Poor Law Commission altered the rules for settlement in a parish, reducing the

number of years required to earn settlement. Thus more non-resident poor became

“irremovable” due to having gained settlement in their new parish. This placed a new burden

on those urban areas that were net importers of workers. So by 1855, 33% of the relief in the

West Riding was paid to the irremovable poor. Despite being a major change, this alteration

was not resisted by either guardians or overseers showing either their unwillingness or their

inability to do so in the face of a more belligerent Poor Law Commission.54

Even this major change did not stop the payment to other unions to care for non-resident

poor. In 1851, the Leeds Union sent sums of money to five other unions, mostly in the West

Riding, but also to the Saint Saviour’s Union, London. This long-distance bilateral agreement

shows that the continuance of payment was not just a feature of the northern industrial towns

with a history of Poor Law resistance, but instead that this happened over a wide area of the

country. The Union also still paid out for 178 non-settled poor in September 1852; this was

11.3% of those receiving poor relief, and as such it was definitely in the local interest to

recoup the monies paid to these paupers, despite what the Poor Law Commission had

decided. 55

54
Michael Rose. “Settlement, Removal and the New Poor Law” ” in The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth
Century. Edited by David Fraser (London, McMillian 1976) 25-45.
55
Leeds Poor Law Guardians Minute Book 1851-1852.

17
Neil Young Y4515745

The experience of the West Riding regarding the implementation and operation of the New

Poor Law is a classic example of Englander’s “regional practices”. The combination of the

local prevalence of Gilbertine Unions, a strong anti-Poor Law movement, and deeply held

views on the use of the workhouse made the Riding one of the more contentious areas for the

Poor Law Commission to enforce uniformity. The initial strength of resistance, however, was

no match for the superior force that the national state could apply to the situation. The use of

national legislation helped to remove local barriers to the New Poor Law and remove flaws in

the original 1834 act. With practices adapted to the area, a regime of local discretion and

accommodation by the state became the norm, thus reducing tensions and allowing a measure

of uniformity to apply.

18
Neil Young Y4515745

Bibliography

Primary Sources:
Cannan, Edwin. The History of the local rates in England. (London. P.S.King. 1912)
Frankland Lewis, T. John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The First Annual Report of
the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1835).
Frankland Lewis T. John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Second Annual Report
of the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1836).
Frankland Lewis, T. John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Third Annual Report
of the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1837).
Frankland Lewis, T. John George Shaw Lefevre, George Nichols. The Fourth Annual Report
of the Poor Law Commissioners (London. C Knight & Co. 1838).
Nicholls, Sir George. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and John George Shaw Lefevre. The
Fifth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1839).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and John George Shaw Lefevre. The
Sixth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1840).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and John George Shaw Lefevre. The
Seventh Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. (London. W Clowes and Son 1841).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The
Eighth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London, W. Clowes and Son 1842).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The Ninth
Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London, W. Clowes and Son 1843).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The Tenth
Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London, W. Clowes and Son 1844).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and Sir Edmund Walker Head. The
Eleventh Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London, W. Clowes and Son 1845).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Edward Turner Boyd Twistleton and Sir
Edmund Walker Head. The Twelfth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London,
W. Clowes and Son 1846).
Nicholls, Sir George, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Edward Turner Boyd Twistleton and Sir
Edmund Walker Head. The Thirteenth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission. (London,
W. Clowes and Son 1847).
Unknown Author. An Act for the Amendment and Better Administration of the Laws relating
to the Poor in England and Wales 1834. (London. Eyre and Spottiswood 1834).
Unknown Author. Law Relating to the Relief of the Poor 2nd Edition. (London. Poor Law
Publications Limited. 1924).

19
Neil Young Y4515745

Unknown Author. Leeds Poor Law Guardians Minute Books 1844-1845.

Secondary Sources:
Ashford, David. “The Urban Poor Law” in The New Poor Law in the Nineteenth Century.
Edited by David Fraser (London, McMillian 1976).
Ashford, David. The Poor Law in Bradford: A study of the relief of poverty in mid-nineteenth
century Bradford. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Bradford. 1979).
Barrett, John Wilson. The Idle, Immoral and Profligate Poor: The condition of the poor and
the ‘taint of pauperism’ in Huddersfield between 1834 and 1874, with particular reference to
the‘undeserving poor’. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Huddersfield. 2012).

Bergen, Amanda Nichola. The Blind, The Deaf and the Halt: Physical Disability, the Poor
Law and Charity c.1830-1890, with particular reference to the County of Yorkshire.
(Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Leeds. 2004).
Blaug, Mark. “The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the Making of the New,” The Journal of
Economic History, 23.2 (Cambridge University Press 1963).
http://dx.doi.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.1017/S0022050700103808 [Accessed 28/10/2018]
Brundage, Anthony. The making of the New Poor Law: the politics ofinquiry, enactment and
implementation. (London. Hutchinson. 1978).
Crowther, M.A. The Workhouse System 1834-1929: the history of an English social
institution. (London. Batsford Academic and Educational. 1981).
Edsell, Nicholas C. The Anti-Poor Law Movement 1834-44. (Manchester. Manchester
University Press. 1971).
Englander, David. Poverty and poor law reform in Britain: From Chadwick to Booth, 1834-
1914. (London. Longman. 1998).
Fraser, Derek. ”Poor Law Politics in Leeds” in Publications of the Thoresby Society Vol15.
(Leeds The Thoresby Society 1970).
Higginbotham, Peter. A grim almanac of the workhouse. (Stroud, Gloucestershire. The
History Press. 2013).
Higginbotham, Peter. www.workhouses.org [Accessed 28/10/2018]
20
Neil Young Y4515745

Sarah Lloyd “Pauper Policies: Poor Law Practice in England, 1780–1850” in, Cultural and
Social History,15:3,2018, 454-455, DOI:10.1080/14780038.2018.1470113 [Accessed
28/10/2018];
Longmate, Norman. The Workhouse. (London. Temple Smith. 1974).
Rose, Michael E. The English Poor Law, 1780-1930. (Newton Abbot. David & Charles.
1971).
Rose, Michael E. “Settlement, Removal and the New Poor Law” in The New Poor Law in the
Nineteenth Century. Edited by David Fraser (London, McMillian 1976).

21