Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 14, 2024

Penal transportation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Women in Plymouth, England, parting from their lovers who are about to be transported to Botany Bay, 1792

Penal transportation was the relocation of convicted criminals, or other persons regarded as undesirable, to a distant place, often a colony, for a specified term; later, specifically established penal colonies became their destination. While the prisoners may have been released once the sentences were served, they generally did not have the resources to return home.

Origin and implementation

Banishment or forced exile from a polity or society has been used as a punishment since at least the 5th century BCE in Ancient Greece. The practice of penal transportation reached its height in the British Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Transportation removed the offender from society, mostly permanently, but was seen as more merciful than capital punishment. This method was used for criminals, debtors, military prisoners, and political prisoners.

Penal transportation was also used as a method of colonization. For example, from the earliest days of English colonial schemes, new settlements beyond the seas were seen as a way to alleviate domestic social problems of criminals and the poor as well as to increase the colonial labour force, for the overall benefit of the realm.

Great Britain and the British Empire

Initially based on the royal prerogative of mercy, and later under English law, transportation was an alternative sentence imposed for a felony. It was typically imposed for offences for which death was deemed too severe. By 1670, as new felonies were defined, the option of being sentenced to transportation was allowed. Depending on the crime, the sentence was imposed for life or for a set period of years. If imposed for a period of years, the offender was permitted to return home after serving their time, but had to make their own way back. Many offenders thus stayed in the colony as free persons, and might obtain employment as jailers or other servants of the penal colony.

England transported an estimated 50,000 to 120,000 convicts and political prisoners, as well as prisoners of war from Scotland and Ireland, to its overseas colonies in the Americas from the 1610s until early in the American Revolution in 1776, when transportation to America was temporarily suspended by the Criminal Law Act 1776 (16 Geo. 3. c. 43). The practice was mandated in Scotland by an act of 1785, but was less used there than in England. Transportation on a large scale resumed with the departure of the First Fleet to Australia in 1787, and continued there until 1868.

Transportation was not used by Scotland before the Act of Union 1707; following union, the Transportation Act 1717 specifically excluded its use in Scotland. Under the Transportation, etc. Act 1785 (25 Geo. 3. c. 46) the Parliament of Great Britain specifically extended the usage of transportation to Scotland. It remained little used under Scots Law until the early 19th century.

In Australia, a convict who had served part of his time might apply for a ticket of leave, permitting some prescribed freedoms. This enabled some convicts to resume a more normal life, to marry and raise a family, and to contribute to the development of the colony.

Historical background

Trend towards more flexibility of sentencing

Neptune, a 19th-century convict ship that brought prisoners to Australia

In England in the 17th and 18th centuries criminal justice was severe, later termed the Bloody Code. This was due to both the particularly large number of offences which were punishable by execution (usually by hanging), and to the limited choice of sentences available to judges for convicted criminals. With modifications to the traditional benefit of clergy, which originally exempted only clergymen from the general criminal law, it developed into a legal fiction by which many common offenders of "clergyable" offences were extended the privilege to avoid execution. Many offenders were pardoned as it was considered unreasonable to execute them for relatively minor offences, but under the rule of law, it was equally unreasonable for them to escape punishment entirely. With the development of colonies, transportation was introduced as an alternative punishment, although legally it was considered a condition of a pardon, rather than a sentence in itself. Convicts who represented a menace to the community were sent away to distant lands. A secondary aim was to discourage crime for fear of being transported. Transportation continued to be described as a public exhibition of the king's mercy. It was a solution to a real problem in the domestic penal system. There was also the hope that transported convicts could be rehabilitated and reformed by starting a new life in the colonies. In 1615, in the reign of James I, a committee of the council had already obtained the power to choose from the prisoners those that deserved pardon and, consequently, transportation to the colonies. Convicts were chosen carefully: the Acts of the Privy Council showed that prisoners "for strength of bodie or other abilities shall be thought fit to be employed in foreign discoveries or other services beyond the Seas".

During the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell overcame the popular prejudice against subjecting Christians to slavery or selling them into foreign parts, and initiated group transportation of military and civilian prisoners. With the Restoration, the penal transportation system and the number of people subjected to it, started to change inexorably between 1660 and 1720, with transportation replacing the simple discharge of clergyable felons after branding the thumb. Alternatively, under the second act dealing with Moss-trooper brigands on the Scottish border, offenders had their benefit of clergy taken away, or otherwise at the judge's discretion, were to be transported to America, "there to remaine and not to returne". There were various influential agents of change: judges' discretionary powers influenced the law significantly, but the king's and Privy Council's opinions were decisive in granting a royal pardon from execution.

The system changed one step at a time: in February 1663, after that first experiment, a bill was proposed to the House of Commons to allow the transporting of felons, and was followed by another bill presented to the Lords to allow the transportation of criminals convicted of felony within clergy or petty larceny. These bills failed, but it was clear that change was needed. Transportation was not a sentence in itself, but could be arranged by indirect means. The reading test, crucial for the benefit of clergy, was a fundamental feature of the penal system, but to prevent its abuse, this pardoning process was used more strictly. Prisoners were carefully selected for transportation based on information about their character and previous criminal record. It was arranged that they fail the reading test, but they were then reprieved and held in jail, without bail, to allow time for a royal pardon (subject to transportation) to be organised.

Transportation as a commercial transaction

Joseph Lycett, an artist transported for forging bank notes, The residence of Edward Riley Esquire, Wooloomooloo, Near Sydney N. S. W., 1825, hand-coloured aquatint and etching printed in dark blue ink. Australian print in the tradition of British decorative production.

Transportation became a business: merchants chose from among the prisoners on the basis of the demand for labour and their likely profits. They obtained a contract from the sheriffs, and after the voyage to the colonies they sold the convicts as indentured servants. The payment they received also covered the jail fees, the fees for granting the pardon, the clerk's fees, and everything necessary to authorise the transportation. These arrangements for transportation continued until the end of the 17th century and beyond, but they diminished in 1670 due to certain complications. The colonial opposition was one of the main obstacles: colonies were unwilling to collaborate in accepting prisoners: the convicts represented a danger to the colony and were unwelcome. Maryland and Virginia enacted laws to prohibit transportation in 1670, and the king was persuaded to respect these.

The penal system was also influenced by economics: the profits obtained from convicts' labour boosted the economy of the colonies and, consequently, of England. Nevertheless, it could be argued that transportation was economically deleterious because the aim was to enlarge population, not diminish it; but the character of an individual convict was likely to harm the economy. King William's War (1688–1697) (part of the Nine Years' War) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14) adversely affected merchant shipping and hence transportation. In the post-war period there was more crime and hence potentially more executions, and something needed to be done. In the reigns of Queen Anne (1702–14) and George I (1714–27), transportation was not easily arranged, but imprisonment was not considered enough to punish hardened criminals or those who had committed capital offences, so transportation was the preferred punishment.

Transportation Act 1717

There were several obstacles to the use of transportation. In 1706 the reading test for claiming benefit of clergy was abolished (6 Ann. c. 9). This allowed judges to sentence "clergyable" offenders to a workhouse or a house of correction. But the punishments that then applied were not enough of a disincentive to commit crime: another solution was needed. The Transportation Act was introduced into the House of Commons in 1717 under the Whig government. It legitimised transportation as a direct sentence, thus simplifying the penal process.

Non-capital convicts (clergyable felons usually destined for branding on the thumb, and petty larceny convicts usually destined for public whipping) were directly sentenced to transportation to the American colonies for seven years. A sentence of fourteen years was imposed on prisoners guilty of capital offences pardoned by the king. Returning from the colonies before the stated period was a capital offence. The bill was introduced by William Thomson, the Solicitor General, who was "the architect of the transportation policy". Thomson, a supporter of the Whigs, was Recorder of London and became a judge in 1729. He was a prominent sentencing officer at the Old Bailey and the man who gave important information about capital offenders to the cabinet.

One reason for the success of this Act was that transportation was financially costly. The system of sponsorship by merchants had to be improved. Initially the government rejected Thomson's proposal to pay merchants to transport convicts, but three months after the first transportation sentences were pronounced at the Old Bailey, his suggestion was proposed again, and the Treasury contracted Jonathan Forward, a London merchant, for the transportation to the colonies. The business was entrusted to Forward in 1718: for each prisoner transported overseas, he was paid £3 (equivalent to £590 in 2023), rising to £5 in 1727 (equivalent to £940 in 2023). The Treasury also paid for the transportation of prisoners from the Home Counties.

The "Felons' Act" (as the Transportation Act was called) was printed and distributed in 1718, and in April twenty-seven men and women were sentenced to transportation. The Act led to significant changes: both petty and grand larceny were punished by transportation (seven years), and the sentence for any non-capital offence was at the judge's discretion. In 1723 an Act was presented in Virginia to discourage transportation by establishing complex rules for the reception of prisoners, but the reluctance of colonies did not stop transportation.

In a few cases before 1734, the court changed sentences of transportation to sentences of branding on the thumb or whipping, by convicting the accused for lesser crimes than those of which they were accused. This manipulation phase came to an end in 1734. With the exception of those years, the Transportation Act led to a decrease in whipping of convicts, thus avoiding potentially inflammatory public displays. Clergyable discharge continued to be used when the accused could not be transported for reasons of age or infirmity.

Women and children

Penal transportation was not limited to men or even to adults. Men, women, and children were sentenced to transportation, but its implementation varied by sex and age. From 1660 to 1670, highway robbery, burglary, and horse theft were the offences most often punishable with transportation for men. In those years, five of the nine women who were transported after being sentenced to death were guilty of simple larceny, an offence for which benefit of clergy was not available for women until 1692. Also, merchants preferred young and able-bodied men for whom there was a demand in the colonies.

All these factors meant that most women and children were simply left in jail. Some magistrates supported a proposal to release women who could not be transported, but this solution was considered absurd: this caused the Lords Justices to order that no distinction be made between men and women. Women were sent to the Leeward Islands, the only colony that accepted them, and the government had to pay to send them overseas. In 1696 Jamaica refused to welcome a group of prisoners because most of them were women; Barbados similarly accepted convicts but not "women, children nor other infirm persons".

Thanks to transportation, the number of men whipped and released diminished, but whipping and discharge were chosen more often for women. The reverse was true when women were sentenced for a capital offence, but actually served a lesser sentence due to a manipulation of the penal system: one advantage of this sentence was that they could be discharged thanks to benefit of clergy while men were whipped. Women with young children were also supported since transportation unavoidably separated them. The facts and numbers revealed how transportation was less frequently applied to women and children because they were usually guilty of minor crimes and they were considered a minimal threat to the community.

The end of transportation


Criminal Law Act 1776

The outbreak of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783) halted transportation to America. Parliament claimed that "the transportation of convicts to his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America ... is found to be attended with various inconveniences, particularly by depriving this kingdom of many subjects whose labour might be useful to the community, and who, by proper care and correction, might be reclaimed from their evil course"; they then passed the Criminal Law Act 1776 (16 Geo. 3. c. 43) "An act to authorize ... the punishment by hard labour of offenders who, for certain crimes, are or shall become liable to be transported to any of his Majesty's colonies and plantations."

Criminal Law Act 1778
Criminal Law Act 1779

For the ensuing decade, men were instead sentenced to hard labour and women were imprisoned. Finding alternative locations to send convicts was not easy, and the act was extended twice by the Criminal Law Act 1778 (18 Geo. 3. c. 62) and the Criminal Law Act 1779 (19 Geo. 3. c. 54).

This resulted in a 1779 inquiry by a parliamentary committee on the entire subject of transportation and punishment; initially the Penitentiary Act 1779 was passed, introducing a policy of state prisons as a measure to reform the system of overcrowded prison hulks that had developed, but no prisons were ever built as a result of the act. The Transportation, etc. Act 1784 (24 Geo. 3. Sess. 2. c. 56) and the Transportation, etc. Act 1785 (25 Geo. 3. c. 46) also resulted to help alleviate overcrowding. Both acts empowered the Crown to appoint certain places within his dominions, or outside them, as the destination for transported criminals; the acts would move convicts around the country as needed for labour, or where they could be utilized and accommodated.

The overcrowding situation and the resumption of transportation would be initially resolved by Orders in Council on 6 December 1786, by the decision to establish a penal colony in New South Wales, on land previously claimed for Britain in 1770, but as yet not settled by Britain or any other European power. The British policy toward Australia, specifically for use as a penal colony, within their overall plans to populate and colonise the continent, would differentiate it from America, where the use of convicts was only a minor adjunct to its overall policy. In 1787, when transportation resumed to the chosen Australian colonies, the far greater distance added to the terrible experience of exile, and it was considered more severe than the methods of imprisonment employed for the previous decade. The Transportation Act 1790 (30 Geo. 3. c. 47) officially enacted the previous orders in council into law, stating "his Majesty hath declared and appointed... that the eastern coast of New South Wales, and the islands thereunto adjacent, should be the place or places beyond the seas to which certain felons, and other offenders, should be conveyed and transported ... or other places". The act also gave "authority to remit or shorten the time or term" of the sentence "in cases where it shall appear that such felons, or other offenders, are proper objects of the royal mercy"

Transportation Act 1824

At the beginning of the 19th century, transportation for life became the maximum penalty for several offences which had previously been punishable by death. With complaints starting in the 1830s, sentences of transportation became less common in 1840 since the system was perceived to be a failure: crime continued at high levels, people were not dissuaded from committing felonies, and the conditions of convicts in the colonies were inhumane. Although a concerted programme of prison building ensued, the Short Titles Act 1896 lists seven other laws relating to penal transportation in the first half of the 19th century.

The system of criminal punishment by transportation, as it had developed over nearly 150 years, was officially ended in Britain in the 1850s, when that sentence was substituted by imprisonment with penal servitude, and intended to punish. The Penal Servitude Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 99), long titled "An Act to substitute, in certain Cases, other Punishment in lieu of Transportation,"[54] enacted that with judicial discretion, lesser felonies, those subject to transportation for less than 14 years, could be sentenced to imprisonment with labour for a specific term. To provide confinement facilities, the general change in sentencing was passed in conjunction with the Convict Prisons Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 121), long titled "An Act for providing Places of Confinement in England or Wales for Female Offenders under Sentence or Order of Transportation." The Penal Servitude Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 3) ended the sentence of transportation in virtually all cases, with the terms of sentence initially being of the same duration as transportation. While transport was greatly reduced following enactment of the 1857 act, the last convicts sentenced to transportation arrived in Western Australia in 1868. During the 80 years of its use to Australia, the number of transported convicts totalled about 162,000 men and women. Over time the alternative terms of imprisonment would be somewhat reduced from their terms of transportation.

Transportation locations

Transportation to North America

From the early 1600s until the American Revolution of 1776, the British colonies in North America received transported British criminals. Destinations were the island colonies of the West Indies and the mainland colonies that became the United States of America.

In the 17th century transportation was carried out at the expense of the convicts or the shipowners. The Transportation Act 1717 allowed courts to sentence convicts to seven years' transportation to America. In 1720, an extension authorized payments by the Crown to merchants contracted to take the convicts to America. The Transportation Act made returning from transportation a capital offence. The number of convicts transported to North America is not verified: John Dunmore Lang has estimated 50,000, and Thomas Keneally has proposed 120,000. Maryland received a larger felon quota than any other province. Many prisoners were taken in battle from Ireland or Scotland and sold into indentured servitude, usually for a number of years. The American Revolution brought transportation to the North American mainland to an end. The remaining British colonies (in what is now Canada) were regarded as unsuitable for various reasons, including the possibility that transportation might increase dissatisfaction with British rule among settlers and/or the possibility of annexation by the United States – as well as the ease with which prisoners could escape across the border.

After the termination of transportation to North America, British prisons became overcrowded, and dilapidated ships moored in various ports were pressed into service as floating gaols known as "hulks". Following an 18th-century experiment in transporting convicted prisoners to Cape Coast Castle (modern Ghana) and the Gorée (Senegal) in West Africa, British authorities turned their attention to New South Wales (in what would become Australia).

From the 1820s until the 1860s, convicts were sent to the Imperial fortress colony of Bermuda (part of British North America) to work on the construction of the Royal Naval Dockyard and other defence works, including at the East End of the archipelago, where they were accommodated aboard the hulk of HMS Thames at an area still known as "Convict Bay", at St. George's town.

1848 Woodcut of HMD Bermuda on Ireland Island, Bermuda, showing prison hulks

Transportation to Australia

This notice on a bridge in Dorset warns that damage to the bridge can be punished by transportation.

In 1787, the First Fleet, a group of convict ships departed from England to establish the first colonial settlement in Australia, as a penal colony. The First Fleet included boats containing food and animals from London. The ships and boats of the fleet would explore the coast of Australia by sailing all around it looking for suitable farming land and resources. The fleet arrived at Botany Bay, Sydney on 18 January 1788, then moved to Sydney Cove (modern-day Circular Quay) and established the first permanent European settlement in Australia. This marked the beginning of the European colonisation of Australia.

Violent conflict on the Australian frontier between indigenous Australians and the colonists began only months after the First Fleet landed, lasting over a century. Convicts forced to work in the bush on the frontier were sometimes the victims of indigenous attacks, while convicts and ex-convicts also attacked indigenous people in some instances, such as the Myall Creek Massacre. In the Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars, a group of Irish convicts joined the Aboriginal coalition of Eora, Gandangara, Dharug and Tharawal nations in their fight against the colonists.

Norfolk Island, east of the Australian mainland, was a convict penal settlement from 1788 to 1794, and again from 1824 to 1847. In 1803, Van Diemen's Land (modern-day Tasmania) was also settled as a penal colony, followed by the Moreton Bay Settlement (modern Brisbane, Queensland) in 1824. The other Australian colonies were established as "free settlements", as non-convict colonies were known. However, the Swan River Colony (Western Australia) accepted transportation from England and Ireland in 1851, to resolve a long-standing labour shortage.

Two penal settlements were established near modern-day Melbourne in Victoria but both were abandoned shortly after. Later, a free settlement was established and this settlement later accepted some convict transportation.

Until the massive influx of immigrants during the Australian gold rushes of the 1850s, free settlers had been outnumbered by penal convicts and their descendants. However, compared to the British American colonies, Australia received a larger number of convicts.

Convicts were generally treated harshly, forced to work against their will, often doing hard physical labour and dangerous jobs. In some cases they were cuffed and chained in work gangs. The majority of convicts were men, although a significant portion were women. Some were as young as 10 when convicted and transported to Australia. Most were guilty of relatively minor crimes like theft of food/clothes/small items, but some were convicted of serious crimes like rape or murder. Convict status was not inherited by children, and convicts were generally freed after serving their sentence, although many died during transportation or during their sentence.

Convict assignment (sending convicts to work for private individuals) occurred in all penal colonies aside from Western Australia, and can be compared with the practice of convict leasing in the United States.

Transportation from Great Britain and Ireland ended at different times in different colonies, with the last being in 1868, although it had become uncommon several years earlier thanks to the loosening of laws in Britain, changing sentiment in Australia, and groups such as the Anti-Transportation League.

In 2015, an estimated 20% of the Australian population had convict ancestry. In 2013, an estimated 30% of the Australian population (about 7 million) had Irish ancestry – the highest percentage outside of Ireland – thanks partially to historical convict transportation.

Transportation from British India

In British India – including the province of Burma (now Myanmar) and the port of Karachi (now part of Pakistan) – Indian independence activists were penally transported to the Andaman Islands. A penal colony was established there in 1857 with prisoners from the Indian Rebellion of 1857. As the Indian independence movement swelled, so did the number of prisoners who were penally transported.

The Cellular Jail in Port Blair, South Andaman Island, also called Kālā Pānī or Kalapani (Hindi for black waters), was constructed between 1896 and 1906 as a high-security prison with 698 individual cells for solitary confinement. Surviving prisoners were repatriated in 1937. The penal settlement was shut down in 1945. An estimated 80,000 political prisoners were transported to the Cellular Jail[73] which became known for its harsh conditions, including forced labor; prisoners who went on hunger strikes were frequently force-fed.[74]

France

France transported convicts to Devil's Island and New Caledonia in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries. Devil's Island, a French penal colony in Guiana, was used for transportation from 1852 to 1953. New Caledonia became a French penal colony from the 1860s until the end of the transportations in 1897; about 22,000 criminals and political prisoners (most notably Communards) were sent to New Caledonia.

Henri Charrière (16 November 1906  – 29 July 1973) was a French writer, convicted in 1931 as a murderer by the French courts and pardoned in 1970. He wrote the novel Papillon, a semi-autobiographical novel of his incarceration in and escape from a penal colony in French Guiana.

The most significant individual transported prisoner is probably French army officer Alfred Dreyfus, wrongly convicted of treason in a trial in 1894, held in an atmosphere of antisemitism. He was sent to Devil's Island. The case became a cause célèbre known as the Dreyfus Affair, and Dreyfus was fully exonerated in 1906.

The Soviet Union

Unlike normal penal transportation, many Soviet people were transported as criminals in forms of deportation being proclaimed as enemies of people in a form of collective punishment. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union transported up to 1.9 million people from its western republics to Siberia and the Central Asian republics of the Union. Most were persons accused of treasonous collaboration with Nazi Germany, or of Anti-Soviet rebellion. Following death of Joseph Stalin, most of them were rehabilitated. Populations targeted included Volga Germans, Chechens, and Caucasian Turkic populations. The transportations had a twofold objective: to remove potential liabilities from the warfront, and to provide human capital for the settlement and industrialization of the largely underpopulated eastern regions. The policy continued until February 1956, when Nikita Khrushchev in his speech, "On the Personality Cult and Its Consequences", condemned the transportation as a violation of Leninist principles. Whilst the policy itself was rescinded, the transported populations did not begin to return to their original metropoles until after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991.

Modern Russia

The Russian government today still sends their convicts and political prisoners to prisons that echo those of the Soviet Union. The journey to these prisons and labor camps is long and arduous.

Conditions on the Stolypins (specialized train cars) are very poor. In many cases, the Russian penitentiary system utilizes special cars. These cars contain five large compartments and three smaller compartments. The larger car is 3.5 meters squared. The size of the larger car is approximately the same as normal Russian railcar spaces. The larger compartments have six and a half individual sleeping spaces. There are three bunks on each wall and a half bunk that goes between the two middle bunks. The half bunk is not full sized and prevents prisoners from standing up in the car. For food, prisoners are given dehydrated food three times a day and limited amounts of hot water to rehydrate their meals. Bedding is not provided nor are mattresses. During transit, prisoners do not have access to proper medical treatment. The medication that a prisoner would normally take is carried by guards. Transportation routes are often cyclical and prisoners do not know where they are going. This sense of unease and unknowing has been known to increase feelings of isolation. This process can take 3–5 hours which further prolongs travel time. Prisoners have very limited access to toilets while on the trains, about every five to six hours. While the trains are stationary they have no access at all. This can be very difficult as trains often are kept at stations or train depots for extended periods of time.

While traveling to and from train stations, prisoners are transported in vans. While the time spent in vans is usually shorter than the time spent in trains, the conditions are still quite bad. The vans normally have two larger compartments that can fit 10 prisoners. Within the compartments there is a smaller compartment that is used to keep "at risk" prisoners safe. The smaller compartment is known as a stakan and is smaller than 0.5 meter squared.

In addition to poor transit conditions, prisoners are severely limited in their communication with the outside world. Prisoners are denied the right to communicate with their lawyers and families. This can be difficult for their families because they do not know where the prisoner is or what has happened to them.

Performing arts

Penal transportation is a feature of many broadsides, a new type of folk song that developed in eighteenth-century England. A number of these transportation ballads have been collected from traditional singers. Examples include "Van Diemen's Land," "The Black Velvet Band," "The Peeler and the Goat", and "The Fields of Athenry."

Timberlake Wertenbaker's play Our Country's Good is set in 1780s in the first Australian penal colony. In the 1988 play, convicts and Royal Marines arrive aboard a First Fleet ship and settle New South Wales. Convicts and guards interact as they rehearse a theatre production, which the governor had suggested as an alternate form of entertainment instead of watching public hangings.

In the TV show American Gods, episode 7 season 1, for one of a side story Emily Browning is playing Essie that is transported twice in her life, bringing with her in America the Leprechaun legend.

In the TV show, Murdoch Mysteries, episode 6 season 14, "The Ministry of Virtue," Murdoch must investigate the death of a woman who was sentenced to a bridal version of the punishment. Namely, Murdoch learns of "Virtue Girls," British female convicts who have accepted the alternative of agreeing to marry bachelors in Canada instead of being sentenced to prison.

Literature

One of the key characters in Charles Dickens's novel Great Expectations is an escaped convict, Abel Magwitch. Pip helps him in the opening pages of the novel. Magwitch, who had been apprehended shortly after the young Pip had helped him, was thereafter sentenced to transportation for life to New South Wales in Australia. While so exiled, he earned the fortune that he later would use to help Pip. Further, it was Magwitch's desire to see the "gentleman" that Pip had become that motivated him to illegally return to England, which ultimately led to his arrest and death. Great Expectations was published in serial form in 1860–1861. In Dickens's novel Oliver Twist, the Artful Dodger is convicted and transported to Australia.

My Transportation for Life, Indian freedom fighter Veer Savarkar's memoir of his imprisonment, is set in the British Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands. Savarkar was imprisoned there from 1911 to 1921.

Franz Kafka's story "In der Strafkolonie" ("In the Penal Colony"), published in 1919, was set in an unidentified penal settlement where condemned prisoners were executed by a brutal machine. The work was later adapted for several other media, including an opera by Philip Glass.

The novel Papillon tells the story of Henri Charrière, a French man convicted of murder in 1931 and exiled to the French Guiana penal colony on Devil's Island. A film adaptation of the book was made in 1973, starring Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman.

The British author W. Somerset Maugham set several stories in the French Caribbean penal colonies. In 1935 he had stayed at Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni in French Guiana. His 1939 novel Christmas Holiday and two short stories in 1940's The Mixture as Before were set there, although he "ignored the brutal punishments and painted a pleasant picture of the infamous colony."

Penal transportation, typically to other planets, sometimes appears in works of science fiction. A classic example is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (1966), in which convicts and political dissidents are transported to lunar colonies in order to grow food for Earth. In Heinlein's book, a sentence of lunar transportation is necessarily permanent, as the long-term physiological effects of the moon's weak surface gravity (about one-sixth that of Earth) leave "loonies" unable to return safely to Earth.

English Poor Laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although many deterrent workhouses developed in the period after the New Poor Law, some had already been built under the existing system. This workhouse in Nantwich, Cheshire, dates from 1780.

The English Poor Laws were a system of poor relief in England and Wales that developed out of the codification of late-medieval and Tudor-era laws in 1587–1598. The system continued until the modern welfare state emerged in the late 1940s.

English Poor Law legislation can be traced back as far as 1536, when legislation was passed to deal with the impotent poor, although there were much earlier Plantagenet laws dealing with the problems caused by vagrants and beggars. The history of the Poor Law in England and Wales is usually divided between two statutes: the Old Poor Law passed during the reign of Elizabeth I (1558–1603) and the New Poor Law, passed in 1834, which significantly modified the system of poor relief. The New Poor Law altered the system from one which was administered haphazardly at a local parish level to a highly centralised system which encouraged the large-scale development of workhouses by poor law unions.

The Poor Law system fell into decline at the beginning of the 20th century owing to factors such as the introduction of the Liberal welfare reforms and the availability of other sources of assistance from friendly societies and trade unions, as well as piecemeal reforms which bypassed the Poor Law system. The Poor Law system was not formally abolished until the National Assistance Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 29), with parts of the law remaining on the books until 1967.

History

Medieval Poor Laws

The Poor Laws in the aftermath of the Black Death (pictured), when labour was in short supply, were concerned with making the able-bodied work. (also see: Sturdy beggar)

The earliest medieval Poor Law was the Ordinance of Labourers of King Edward III, issued in 1349 and revised in 1350. The ordinance was issued in response to the 1348–1350 outbreak of the Black Death in England, when an estimated 30–40% of the population died. The decline in population left surviving workers in great demand in the agricultural economy. Landowners had to face the choice of raising wages to compete for workers or letting their lands go unused. Wages for labourers rose, and this forced up prices across the economy as goods became more expensive to produce. An attempt to rein in prices, the ordinance (and subsequent acts, such the Statute of Labourers of 1351) required that everyone who could work did; that wages were kept at pre-plague levels; and that food was not overpriced. Workers saw these shortage conditions as an opportunity to flee employers and become freemen, so Edward III passed additional laws to provide for the punishment of the wave of escapee workers. In addition, the Statute of Cambridge, passed in 1388, placed restrictions on the movement of labourers and beggars.

Tudor Poor Law

The origins of the English Poor Law system can be traced back to late medieval statutes dealing with beggars and vagrancy, but it was only during the Tudor period that the Poor Law system was codified. Before the Dissolution of the Monasteries during the Tudor Reformation, monasteries had been the primary source of poor relief, but their dissolution resulted in poor relief moving from a largely voluntary basis to a compulsory tax that was collected at a parish level. Early legislation was concerned with vagrants and making the able-bodied work, especially while labour was in short supply following the Black Death.

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem originated during the reign of Henry VII. In 1495, Parliament passed the Vagabonds and Beggars Act ordering that "vagabonds, idle and suspected persons shall be set in the stocks for three days and three nights and have none other sustenance but bread and water and then shall be put out of Town. Every beggar suitable to work shall resort to the Hundred where he last dwelled, is best known, or was born and there remain upon the pain aforesaid." Although this returned the burden of caring for the jobless to the communities producing more children than they could employ, it offered no immediate remedy to the problem of poverty; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. Moreover, no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorised as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on.

In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the "mother and root of all vices" and ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in the Vagabonds Act 1530 the following year, with one important change: it directed the justices of the peace to assign to the impotent poor an area within which they were to beg. Generally, the licences to beg for the impotent poor were limited to the disabled, sick, and elderly. An impotent person begging out of his area was to be imprisoned for two days and nights in the stocks, on bread and water, and then sworn to return to the place in which he was authorised to beg. An able-bodied beggar was to be whipped, and sworn to return to the place where he was born, or last dwelt for the space of three years, and there put himself to labour. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped.

In London, there was a great massing of the poor, and the Reformation threatened to eliminate some of the infrastructure used to provide for the poor. As a result, King Henry VIII consented to re-endow St. Bartholomew's Hospital in 1544 and St. Thomas' Hospital in 1552 on the condition that the citizens of London pay for their maintenance. However, the city was unable to raise enough revenue from voluntary contributions, so it instituted the first definite compulsory Poor Rate in 1547, which replaced Sunday collections in church with a mandatory collection for the poor. In 1555, London became increasingly concerned with the number of poor who could work, but yet could not find work, so it established the first House of Correction (predecessor to the workhouse) in the King's Palace at Bridewell where poor could receive shelter and work at cap-making, feather-bed making, and wire drawing.

For the able-bodied poor, life became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI. The Vagabonds Act 1547 was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offence, and death for the second. Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty. In 1552, Edward VI passed the Poor Act 1551 which designated a position of "Collector of Alms" in each parish and created a register of licensed poor. Under the assumption that parish collections would now relieve all poor, begging was completely prohibited.

The government of Elizabeth I, Edward VI's successor after Mary I, was also inclined to severity. The Vagabonds Act 1572 called for offenders to be burned through the ear for a first offence, and that persistent beggars should be hanged; however, the Act also made the first clear distinction between the "professional beggar" and those unemployed through no fault of their own. Early in her reign, Elizabeth I also passed laws directly aimed at providing relief for the poor. For example, in 1563, her Act for the Relief of the Poor required all parish residents with ability to contribute to poor collections. Those who "of his or their forward willful mind shall obstinately refuse to give weekly to the relief of the poor according to his or their abilities" could be bound over to justices of the peace and fined £10. Additionally, the 1572 Act further enabled Justices of the Peace to survey and register the impotent poor, determine how much money was required for their relief, and then assess parish residents weekly for the appropriate amount. The Poor Act 1575 required towns to create "a competent stock of wool, hemp, flax, iron and other stuff" for the poor to work on and houses of correction for those who refused to work where recalcitrant or careless workers could be forced to work and punished accordingly.

A new colonial solution

In the early 1580s, with the development of English colonisation schemes, initially in Ireland and later in North America, a new method to alleviate the condition of the poor would be suggested and utilised considerably over time. Merchant and colonisation proponent George Peckham noted the then-current domestic conditions; "there are at this day great numbers which live in such penurie & want, as they could be content to hazard their lives, and to ser[v]e one yeere for meat, drinke and apparell only, without wages, in hope thereby to amend their estates." With this, he may have been the first to suggest what became the institution of indentured service. At the same time Richard Hakluyt, in his preface to Divers Voyages, likens English planters to "Bees...led out by their Captaines to swarme abroad"; he recommends "deducting" the poor out of the realm. Hakluyt also broadens the scope and additionally recommends to empty the prisons and send them off to the New World.

By 1619 Virginia's system of indentured service would be fully developed, and subsequent colonies would adopt the method with modifications suitable to their different conditions and times. English penal transportation would be implemented soon afterwards, and evolve into a subsidized government endeavor with the Transportation Act 1717.

Old Poor Law

The Poor Relief Act 1601 is sometimes referred to as the "43rd Elizabeth" as it was passed in the 43rd year of the reign of Elizabeth I of England (pictured).

In 1597, a session of Parliament was called to deal with the issues of increased poverty and vagrancy, among other things. This session culminated in the passage of several Acts referred to as the "Poor Laws of 1598". Among them were the Poor Relief Act 1597 and the Vagabonds Act 1597. These laws were further refined and formalized by the next session of Parliament, primarily in the Poor Relief Act 1601. Together, these Acts of 1598 and 1601 came to be known as "The Elizabethan Poor Laws."

The more immediate origins of the Elizabethan Poor Law system were deteriorating economic circumstances in sixteenth-century England. Historian George Boyer has stated that England suffered rapid inflation at this time caused by population growth, the debasement of coinage and the inflow of American silver. Poor harvests in the period between 1595 and 1598 caused the numbers in poverty to increase, while charitable giving had decreased after the dissolution of the monasteries and religious guilds.

The Poor Relief Act 1601 created a system administered at parish level, paid for by levying local rates on rate payers. Relief for those too ill or old to work, the 'impotent poor', was in the form of a payment or items of food ('the parish loaf') or clothing also known as outdoor relief. Some aged people might be accommodated in parish alms houses, though these were usually private charitable institutions. Meanwhile, able-bodied beggars who had refused work were often placed in Houses of Correction or even subjected to beatings to mend their attitudes. Provision for the many able-bodied poor in the workhouse was relatively unusual, and most workhouses developed later. The 1601 Law made parents and children responsible for each other, so elderly parents would live with their children.

The Old Poor Law was a parish-based system; there were around 15,000 such parishes based upon the area around a parish church. The system allowed for despotic behaviour from the overseers of the poor, but as they would know their paupers, they were considered able to differentiate between the deserving and undeserving poor, making the system both more humane and initially more efficient. The population was then small enough for everyone to know everyone else's circumstances, so the idle poor would be unable to claim on the parishes' poor rate. The system provided social stability yet by 1750 needed to be adapted to cope with population increases, greater mobility and regional price variations.

The 1601 act sought to deal with 'settled' poor who had found themselves temporarily out of work—it was assumed they would accept indoor relief or outdoor relief. Neither method was then deemed harsh. The act was intended to deal with beggars who were considered a threat to civil order. The act was passed at a time when poverty was considered necessary as fear of poverty made people work. In 1607 a House of Correction was set up in each county. However, this system was separate from the 1601 system which distinguished between the settled poor and 'vagrants'. There was much variation in the application of the law and there was a tendency for the destitute to migrate towards the more generous parishes, usually situated in the towns. This led to the Settlement Act 1662 also known as the Poor Relief Act 1662, which allowed relief only to established residents of a parish; mainly through birth, marriage and apprenticeship. Unfortunately, the laws reduced the mobility of labour and discouraged the pauper from leaving his parish to find work. They also encouraged industry to create short contracts (e.g. 364 days) that did not make an employee eligible for poor relief.

A pauper applicant had to prove a settlement. If he could not, he was removed to the parish nearest to his birthplace, or where he prove some connection; some paupers were moved hundreds of miles. Although the parishes he passed through en route had no responsibility for him, they were supposed to supply food and drink and shelter for at least one night. An act of 1697 required beggars to wear a badge of red or blue cloth on the right shoulder with an embroidered letter "P" and the initial of their parish. However, this practice soon fell into disuse.

The workhouse movement began at the end of the 17th century with the establishment of the Bristol Corporation of the Poor, founded by the Bristol Poor Act in 1696. The corporation established a workhouse which combined housing and care of the poor with a house of correction for petty offenders. Following the example of Bristol, some twelve further towns and cities established similar corporations in the next two decades. As these corporations required private acts, they were unsuitable for smaller towns and individual parishes.

Starting with the parish of Olney, Buckinghamshire in 1714 several dozen small towns and individual parishes established their own institutions without any specific legal authorization. These were concentrated in the South Midlands and in the county of Essex. From the late 1710s the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge began to promote the idea of parochial workhouses. The society published several pamphlets on the subject, and supported Sir Edward Knatchbull in his successful efforts to steer the Workhouse Test Act through Parliament in 1723.[51] The act gave legislative authority for the establishment of parochial workhouses, by both single parishes and as joint ventures between two or more parishes. More importantly, the act helped to publicise the idea of establishing workhouses to a national audience. By 1776 some 1,912 parish and corporation workhouses had been established in England and Wales, housing almost 100,000 paupers. Perhaps one million people were receiving some kind of parish poor relief by the end of the century.[52] Although many parishes and pamphlet writers expected to earn money from the labour of the poor in workhouses, the vast majority of people obliged to take up residence in workhouses were ill, elderly, or children whose labour proved largely unprofitable. The demands, needs and expectations of the poor also ensured that workhouses came to take on the character of general social policy institutions, combining the functions of creche, and night shelter, geriatric ward and orphanage. In 1782, Thomas Gilbert finally succeeded in passing the Relief of the Poor Act that established poor houses solely for the aged and infirm and introduced a system of outdoor relief for the able-bodied. This was the basis for the development of the Speenhamland system, which made financial provision for low-paid workers. Settlement Laws were altered by the Poor Removal Act 1795 which prevented non-settled persons from being moved on unless they had applied for relief. An investigation of the history and current state of the Poor Laws was made by Michael Nolan in his 1805 Treatise of the Laws for the Relief and Settlement of the Poor. The work would go on to three subsequent editions in Nolan's lifetime (Nolan was elected an MP for Barnstaple in 1820), and stoked the discussion both within and outside of Parliament.

Advertisement for builders to build a new Workhouse in north Wales, 1829

During the Napoleonic Wars it became difficult to import cheap grain into Britain which resulted in the price of bread increasing. As wages did not also increase, many agricultural labourers were plunged into poverty. Following peace in 1814, the Tory government of Lord Liverpool passed the Corn Laws to keep the price of grain artificially high. 1815 saw great social unrest as the end of the French Wars saw industrial and agricultural depression and high unemployment. Social attitudes to poverty began to change after 1815 and overhauls of the system were considered. The Poor Law system was criticized as distorting the free market and in 1816 a parliamentary select committee looked into altering the system which resulted in the Sturges-Bourne's Act being passed. 1817 also saw the passing of the Poor Employment Act, "to authorise the issue of Exchequer Bills and the Advance of Money out of the Consolidated Fund, to a limited Amount, for the carrying on of Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom and Employment of the Poor in Great Britain". By 1820, before the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 workhouses were already being built to reduce the spiraling cost of poor relief. Boyer suggests several possible reasons for the gradual increase in relief given to able-bodied males, including the enclosure movement and a decline in industries such as wool spinning and lace making. Boyer also contends that farmers were able to take advantage of the poor law system to shift some of their labour costs onto the tax payer.

The Royal Commission on the Poor Law

Nassau William Senior argued for greater centralization of the Poor Law system.

The 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws was set up following the widespread destruction and machine breaking of the Swing Riots. The report was prepared by a commission of nine, including Nassau William Senior, and served by Edwin Chadwick as Secretary. The royal commission's primary concerns were with illegitimacy (or "bastardy"), reflecting the influence of Malthusians, and the fear that the practices of the Old Poor Law were undermining the position of the independent labourer. Two practices were of particular concern: the "roundsman" system, where overseers hired out paupers as cheap labour, and the Speenhamland system, which subsidised low wages without relief. The report concluded that the existing Poor Laws undermined the prosperity of the country by interfering with the natural laws of supply and demand, that the existing means of poor relief allowed employers to force down wages, and, that poverty itself was inevitable.

The commission proposed the New Law be governed by two overarching principles:

  • "less eligibility": that the pauper should have to enter a workhouse with conditions worse than that of the poorest free labourer outside of the workhouse.
  • the "workhouse test", that relief should only be available in the workhouse. The reformed workhouses were to be uninviting, so that anyone capable of coping outside them would choose not to be in one.

When the act was introduced however it had been partly watered down. The workhouse test and the idea of "less eligibility" were never mentioned themselves and the recommendation of the royal commission that outdoor relief (relief given outside of a workhouse) should be abolished – was never implemented. The report recommended separate workhouses for the aged, infirm, children, able-bodied females and able-bodied males. The report also stated that parishes should be grouped into unions in order to spread the cost of workhouses and a central authority should be established in order to enforce these measures. The Poor Law Commission set up by Earl Grey took a year to write its report, the recommendations passed easily through Parliament support by both main parties the Whigs and the Tories. The bill gained royal assent in 1834. The few who opposed the bill were more concerned about the centralisation which it would bring rather than the underpinning philosophy of utilitarianism.

New Poor Law

The Poor Law Amendment Act was passed in 1834 by the government of Lord Melbourne and largely implemented the findings of the royal commission which had presented its findings two years earlier. The New Poor Law is considered to be one of the most "far-reaching pieces of legislation of the entire Nineteenth Century" and "classic example of the fundamental WhigBenthamite reforming legislation of the period". The act aimed to reduce the burden on rate payers and can be seen as an attempt by the Whig government to win the votes of the classes enfranchised by the Great Reform Act. Despite being labelled an "amendment act" it completely overhauled the existing system and established a Poor Law Commission to oversee the national operation of the system. This included the forming together of small parishes into poor law unions and the building of workhouses in each union for the giving of poor relief. Although the legislation sought to reduce costs to rate payers, one area not reformed was the system's continued financing via "poor rates" on property owners.

Although the Poor Law Amendment Act did not ban all forms of outdoor relief, it stated that no able-bodied person was to receive money or other help from the Poor Law authorities except in a workhouse. Conditions in workhouses were to be made harsh to discourage people from claiming. Workhouses were to be built in every parish, or in poor law unions. The Poor Law Commissioners were to be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the act.

Various reasons prevented the application of some of the act's terms. Less eligibility was in some cases impossible without starving paupers, and the high cost of building workhouses incurred by rate payers meant that outdoor relief continued to be a popular alternative. Despite efforts to ban outdoor relief, parishes continued to offer it as a more cost-effective method of dealing with pauperism. The Outdoor Labour Test Order and Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order were both issued to try to prevent people receiving relief outside of the workhouse.

When the new amendment was applied to the industrial North of England (an area the law had never considered during reviews), the system failed catastrophically as many found themselves temporarily unemployed, due to recessions or a fall in stock demands (so-called 'cyclical unemployment') and were reluctant to enter a workhouse, despite its being the only method of gaining aid. Nottingham also was allowed an exemption from the law and continued to provide outdoor relief.

The abuses and shortcomings of the system are documented in the novels of Charles Dickens and Frances Trollope and later in The People of the Abyss by Jack London. Despite the aspirations of the reformers, the New Poor Law was unable to make the Workhouse as bad as life outside. The primary problem was that in order to make the diet of the workhouse inmates "less eligible" than what they could expect outside, it would be necessary to starve the inmates beyond an acceptable level. It was for this reason that other ways were found to deter entrance to the workhouses. These measures ranged from the introduction of prison-style uniforms to the segregation of inmates into separate yards for men, women, boys, and girls.

In 1846, the Andover workhouse scandal, where conditions in the Andover Union workhouse were found to be inhumane and dangerous, prompted a government review and the replacement of the Poor Law Commission with a Poor Law Board. Now, a committee of Parliament was to administer the Poor Law, with a cabinet minister as head. Despite this another scandal occurred over inhumane treatment of paupers in the Huddersfield workhouse.

After the New Poor Law

Infighting between Edwin Chadwick and other Poor Law Commissioners was one reason for an overhaul of Poor Law administration.

After 1847 the Poor Law Commission was replaced with a Poor Law Board. This was because of the Andover workhouse scandal and the criticism of Henry Parker who was responsible for the Andover union as well as the tensions in Somerset House caused by Chadwick's failure to become a Poor Law Commissioner. The Poor Law had been altered in 1834 because of increasing costs. The Workhouse Visiting Society which formed in 1858 highlighted conditions in workhouses and led to workhouses being inspected more often. The Union Chargeability Act 1865 was passed in order to make the financial burden of pauperism be placed upon the whole unions rather than individual parishes. Most boards of guardians were middle class and committed to keeping poor rates as low as possible. After the Reform Act 1867 there was increasing welfare legislation. As this legislation required local authorities' support the Poor Law Board was replaced with a Local Government Board in 1871. The Local Government Board led a crusade against outdoor relief supported by the Charity Organisation Society, an organization which viewed outdoor relief as destroying the self-reliance of the poor. The effect of this renewed effort to deter outdoor relief was to reduce claimants by a third and to increase numbers in the work house by 12–15%. County councils were formed in 1888, and district councils in 1894. This meant that public housing, unlike health and income maintenance, developed outside the scope of the Poor Law. Poor Law policy after the New Poor Law concerning the elderly, the sick and mentally ill and children became more humane. This was in part due to the expense of providing "mixed workhouses" as well as changing attitudes regarding the causes and nature of poverty.

Decline and abolition

David Lloyd George, architect of the Liberal welfare reforms which were implemented outside of the Poor Law system and paved the way for the eventual abolition of the Poor Law.

The Poor Law system began to decline with the availability of other forms of assistance. The growth of friendly societies provided help for its members without recourse to the Poor Law system. Some trade unions also provided help for their members. The Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act 1885 meant that people who had accessed medical care funded by the poor rate were no longer disqualified from voting in elections. In 1886 the Chamberlain Circular encouraged the Local Government Board to set up work projects when unemployment rates were high rather than use workhouses. The Conservatives passed the Unemployed Workmen Act 1905 which provided for temporary employment for workers in times of unemployment.

In 1905 a royal commission was set up to investigate what changes could be made to the Poor Law. The commission produced two conflicting reports but both investigations were largely ignored by the Liberal government when implementing their own scheme of welfare legislation. The welfare reforms of the Liberal government made several provisions to provide social services without the stigma of the Poor Law, including old age pensions and National Insurance, and from that period fewer people were covered by the system. From 1911, the term "workhouse" was replaced by "Poor Law Institution". Means tests were developed during the inter-war period, not as part of the Poor Law, but as part of the attempt to offer relief that was not affected by the stigma of pauperism. According to Lees by slowly dismantling the system the Poor Law was "to die by attrition and surgical removals of essential organs".

During the First World War there is evidence that some workhouses were used as makeshift hospitals for wounded servicemen. Numbers using the Poor Law system increased during the interwar years and between 1921 and 1938 despite the extension of unemployment insurance to virtually all workers except the self-employed. Many of these workers were provided with outdoor relief. One aspect of the Poor Law that continued to cause resentment was that the burden of poor relief was not shared equally by rich and poor areas but, rather, fell most heavily on those areas in which poverty was at its worst. This was a central issue in the Poplar Rates Rebellion led by George Lansbury and others in 1921. Lansbury had in 1911 written a provocative attack on the workhouse system in a pamphlet entitled "Smash Up the Workhouse!".

Poverty in the interwar years (1918–1939) was responsible for several measures which largely killed off the Poor Law system. The Board of Guardians (Default) Act 1926 was passed in response to some Boards of Guardians supporting the miners during the General Strike. Workhouses were officially abolished by the Local Government Act 1929, and between 1929 and 1930 Poor Law Guardians, the "workhouse test" and the term "pauper" disappeared. The Unemployment Assistance Board was set up in 1934 to deal with those not covered by the earlier National Insurance Act 1911 passed by the Liberals, and by 1937 the able-bodied poor had been absorbed into this scheme. By 1936 only 13% of people were still receiving poor relief in some form of institution.

In 1948 the Poor Law system was finally abolished with the introduction of the modern welfare state and the passing of the National Assistance Act. The National Health Service Act 1946 came into force in 1948 and created the modern day National Health Service.

Opposition

Punch criticized the New Poor Law's workhouses for splitting mothers and their infant children.

Opposition to the Poor Law grew at the beginning of the 19th century. The 1601 system was felt to be too costly and was considered in academic circles as encouraging the underlying problems. Jeremy Bentham argued for a disciplinary, punitive approach to social problems, whilst the writings of Thomas Malthus focused attention on overpopulation, and the growth of illegitimacy. David Ricardo argued that there was an "iron law of wages". The effect of poor relief, in the view of the reformers, was to undermine the position of the "independent labourer".

In the period following the Napoleonic Wars, several reformers altered the function of the "poorhouse" into the model for a deterrent workhouse. The first of the deterrent workhouses in this period was at Bingham, Nottinghamshire. The second was Becher's workhouse in Southwell, now maintained by the National Trust. George Nicholls, the overseer at Southwell, was to become a Poor Law Commissioner in the reformed system. The 1817 Report of the Select Committee on the Poor Laws condemned the Poor Law as causing poverty itself.

The introduction of the New Poor Law also resulted in opposition. Some who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws suggested that the existing system had proved adequate and was more adaptable to local needs. This argument was strongest in the industrial North of England and in the textile industries where outdoor relief was a more effective method of dealing with cyclical unemployment as well as being a more cost-effective method. Poor Law commissioners faced greatest opposition in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire where in 1837 there was high unemployment during an economic depression. The New Poor Law was seen as interference from Londoners with little understanding of local affairs. Opposition was unusually strong because committees had already been formed in opposition to the Ten Hours Movement, leaders of the Ten Hours campaign such as Richard Oastler, Joseph Rayner Stephens and John Fielden became the leaders of the Anti-Poor Law campaign. The Book of Murder was published and was aimed at creating opposition to the workhouse system. and pamphlets were published spreading rumour and propaganda about Poor Law Commissioners and alleged infanticide inside of workhouses. Opposition to the Poor Law yielded some successes in delaying the development of workhouses, and one workhouse in Stockport was attacked by a crowd of rioters. As many Boards of Guardians were determined to continue under the old system, the Poor Law Commission granted some boards the right to continue providing relief under the Old Poor Law. However, the movement against the New Poor Law was short-lived, leading many to instead turn towards Chartism.

Scotland and Ireland

The Poor Law systems of Scotland and Ireland were distinct from the English Poor Law system covering England and Wales although Irish legislation was heavily influenced by the English Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. In Scotland the Poor Law system was reformed by the Poor Law (Scotland) Act 1845. In Ireland the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 was the first attempt to put control of the destitute and responsibility for their welfare on a statutory basis. Due to exceptional overcrowding, workhouses in Ireland stopped admissions during the Irish famine and increasingly resorted to outdoor relief. Emigration was sometimes used by landlords as a method of keeping the cost of poor relief down and removing surplus labour. Reforms after the Irish War of Independence resulted in the abolition of Boards of Guardians in the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State and their replacement by County Boards of Health.

Historiography

The historiography of the Poor Laws has passed through several distinct phases. The "traditionalist" or "orthodox" account of the Poor Laws focuses upon the deficiencies of the Old Poor Law. This early historiography was influential in successfully overhauling the system. Mark Blaug presents the first revisionist analysis of the Poor Law in "The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the making of the New", commenting that the Old Poor Law did not reduce the efficiency of agricultural workers, lower wages, depress rents or compound the burden on rate payers. Blaug argues that Old Poor Law was a device "for dealing with the problems of structural unemployment and substandard wages in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly growing but still underdeveloped economy". Other areas of Poor Law which have concerned historians include the extent to which the Second Great Reform Act contributed to the Poor Law Amendment Act and the extent to which outdoor relief was abolished following the New Poor Law.

Historical materialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic Historical materialism is Karl M...