The New Poor Law in England
With regard to the Poor Law in England there were perceived to be two key problems, namely the continual increase in the burden of the poor rates due to the growth and scope of relief to the able-bodied, and abuses in the system.
Bowley has also pointed out that the problem was primarily one of the agricultural areas, and the concern was over reducing the rates rather than depauperising the labourer (see Bowley 1937: 282). Senior's main contribution was in altering ‘class-reform dictated by political necessity, to one of a large-scale social reform based on a philosophy of a free society' (ibid.: 283), and that the key to this was to free the labourer from pauperism. Howick conferred with the leaders of the Whig administration and it was agreed that something ought to be done about the Poor Law abuses in England. On 19 January 1832, Senior's friend (and Secretary to the Board of Control) Thomas Hyde Villiers wrote to Howick suggesting the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate pauperism and make recommendations for reform. He recommended Senior as a ‘practical Political Economist, who has written well on the subject' (Villiers quoted in Bowley 1937: 286).[33] Lord Chancellor Brougham suggested that the Commission be divided into a Central Board, made up of Commissioners, and itinerant Assistant Commissioners who would collect facts and opinions. The Board would digest the information collected and produce proposals based on the evidence. It would also prepare “Instructions” for the Assistant Commissioners; Senior was given this task (see Senior 1832, 1832 [1970]). However, so much time was taken in preparing the questions and Instructions as well as in appointing the Assistant Commissioners that few of them had actually begun to work before August 1832.Brougham demanded that the results of the Commission's work should be sent to him piecemeal.
Senior was given the early results (some 600 replies) and took the opportunity of digesting these for Brougham and presenting his own proposals for reform based on these initial findings. The results were presented in a letter to Brougham dated 14 September 1832—barely a month after the majority of assistants had begun their work. In this letter, Senior focused on five problems: the Allowance System which destroyed productivity; the diminution of the wages and rates funds; the settlement laws; corruption; and the question of bastardy (see Levy 1970: 247-262).Senior's fundamental objection to the Poor Laws can be seen from this letter in which he argued against the practice which had developed of giving allowances to the able-bodied working poor. The consequences of these allowances for the workforce were to reduce their wages, morale and productivity. The reason why the demands on the funds were increasing was that the people who should have known better, such as farmers, the clergy and the magistrates, subscribed to the ‘monstrous' (Senior in ibid.: 249) doctrines that wages were a matter of right and not contract and that the amount for their payment and the payment of poor relief was inexhaustible. Extravagant rates of wages and allowances had been granted as a result. Senior's fundamental objection to the Poor Laws was not that they were likely to increase the rate of growth of population, but that they were likely to reduce the rate of growth of the wages fUnd from which labour could be supported. He argued for the repeal of the Relief of the Poor Act (Gilbert's Act) of 1782 which forbade the placing of the able-bodied in workhouses. Allowances would be abolished and in future anyone seeking relief would have to enter the workhouse. He also recommended changes to the law relating to bastardy. Having made detailed comparisons, Levy argued that ‘many portions of the Commissioners' Report of 1834 were taken verbatim' from Senior's 1832 letter (Levy 1970: 83).
The main point of the reforms eventually outlined in the 1834 Report was to reduce claims for relief from the able-bodied and this was to be achieved by making the system a harsh one. Central to this was the principle of “less eligibility” and the workhouse test. Less eligibility meant that the situation of an able-bodied pauper ‘on the whole shall not be made really or apparently so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class' (Senior 1834: 228). This could be enforced by making the able-bodied and their families go into a workhouse as a “test” of their destitution. Conditions there would involve strict discipline, hard work, monotonous food and the separation of families. The final Report of 1834 reflected much of Senior's approach but whilst the reforms were harsh, they were better than the outright abolition proposed by Ricardo and Malthus.
Senior wrote a letter to Brougham in January 1833 (Senior 1833) concerning the administration of the Poor Law Commission (see Levy 1970: 255-262). He argued strongly against the government taking full responsibility for relief, stating that to do so would make the government the general insurer against ‘misfortunes, idleness, improvidence and vice' (ibid.: 60). Instead, his scheme combined central inspection with local financial responsibility. In March 1835, Tocqueville wrote from Paris requesting some assistance with work he was preparing on pauperism. Senior duly obliged by sending him a number of pamphlets from the work on the Poor Law Reform Bill. Tocqueville published his Memoir on Pauperism in 1835, a work which was influenced by his visit to England and discussions with Senior (de Tocqueville 1835 [1997]).
In 1841, Senior published an article entitled “English Poor Laws” in the Edinburgh Review (Senior 1841a) in which he traced the history of the English Poor Laws from the fourteenth century until the reforms of 1834. Also in 1841, Senior authored an anonymous pamphlet called Remarks on the Opposition to the Poor Law Amendment Law Amendment Bill (Senior 1841b).
He endeavoured to vindicate the 1834 Bill and, accepting that it would never be popular with everyone, made a plea for its continuation and renewal. Much of Senior's focus was on the danger of a possible revival of the Allowance System.In December 1846, Senior wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister Lord John Russell (Senior 1846a) regarding the reorganisation of the English Poor Law Commission (see Levy 1970: 274-279). This concerned the question of local management versus centralisation. It was local management, Senior argued, which brought on the problems of the pre-1834 position. On the other hand, there were dangers inherent in centralisation, especially if it were in the form of a government department subject to the politics of the House of Commons. The Poor Law Amendment Act had steered a middle course with its organisational machinery comprising Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners. Senior made a plea for a possible increase in the numbers of Assistant Commissioners who had become overloaded with work.
For his efforts with regard to the Poor Law, Senior was offered a knighthood which he turned down. He was also offered and declined the Governorship of Upper Canada.
7