Rules inside the Workhouses were very strict and in order not to interfere with the outside economy jobs were often pointless, such as the smashing of stones or chopping of wood. Conditions were incredibly bad, by the 1840s reports of some of the worst atrocities were common knowledge, those who died in the workhouses were laid to rest in giant pauper burial pits. It was reported rather than enter the Bastilles the poor would better stay at home and starve. This meant in order to live workers were forced to go out and find work, or face death, although crude the system was very effective, and meant expenditure on relief became a downward trend. The system was so successful by 1838 Ireland was using a similar method to control its poor. The famous writer D.H. Lawrence described that it “betrayed the spirit of man in the 19th Century” showing that it was a time of working for the master. The Industrialists were happy because they had to pay less tax and it motivated workers to work harder and keep their jobs. There had been little initial opposition to the Poor Law Amendment Act and there was no national Anti-Poor Law league, this pleased the Whigs because it allowed for smoother running. The Government had expected that there would be strong opposition due to the break with tradition it was causing however there were never more than fifty votes against issues in the bill, this represented a small group of Conservatives. Localised revolts were common though; Thompson believes the repeal of old poor laws, “constituted the last act in a shameful series of robberies by which the poor had been cheated of their rights” . After the act was put in place a lot of opposition did form, most strongly heard was that of the North between 1837 and 1847 as industry was causing a lot of unemployment, Richard Oastler supported those affected, and in an act of rebellion local authorities granted relief. This was the only major incident although when Lord Brougham suggested, “the Amendment act was only a cautious step towards abolition ” this alarmed many, but abolition was never really considered. In reflection Richard Oastler and William Cobbett were the main voices against the Poor Law but never really caught enough attention and support. In truth the removal of outdoor relief did cause some initial hardship, but wages were generally restored, whilst food and clothing prices reduced. Any real opposition that did form was Chartism in the 1840s, which concentrated on establishing political power for the working classes.
The Poor Law movement did begin a trend for change, it got workers away from the traps of simply living on handouts, aided the economy and allowed more resources to become available for practices such as the Public Health act also led by Chadwick. Importantly it removed the idleness the old Poor Law had promoted and meant industrialists could call upon a wealth of workers who would be happy for a wage. It did no provide more for the poor, but it was never intended to do so, more jobs were not created, but it did help to get more out of poverty. It was simply a system that stopped the old failings of an archaic tradition. By the 1870s calls for change to the 1834 act included plans to create a registrar for Children, sick, mentally defective, and the aged, there was an acceptance it was not always individuals fault, this would aid those who conformed.
The 1834 Poor Law amendment act worked on the theory that it would create an “Interdependent market economy resting on self interest, competition and contract” . The changes to the Poor Law were ways in which social order could be maintained. If the poor had to work for themselves they would then work harder to make more money, and were less likely to have children as this would make there lives harder. Men like Nassau senior believed if workers became more efficient and work harder then employers would be able to afford to give better wages. This would make for an improved stronger economy. In conclusion the Question of whether the Poor Laws were beneficial or hurtful is a widely questioned debate. I believe Chadwick and Senior worked in a time when government did want more state involvement and did want better conditions for people in general. However they also saw the need to get people off their dependence on relief, and to reduce government expenditure in this area. The Poor Law Amendment Act was beneficial to its creators the Whigs as it successfully got more people off aid, however in the long term it was also beneficial to the poor and the economy. Laissez Faire was symbolically over and the landed Elite as the end of the Corn Laws showed were living in a time when Industrialisation and profit dominated society.
