Chapter 1163: Chapter 122: Irreverent Imperialists
And every ti during festivals, or when local village gentlen donate for charity, the parish will also provide essential goods to the poor such as food, clothing, fuel, and cleaning supplies. If lucky, sotis they may even receive so money. Wealthy parishes might even distribute materials for house repairs and workers’ wages, etc.
Although in these poor relief efforts, there are often significant differences due to varying levels of economic developnt and numbers of poor people across regions. But at least in the more than 200 years since the “Elizabeth Poor Laws” were enacted, the act has indeed served to relieve poverty to a considerable extent, mitigate social conflicts, and maintain social stability.
During this 200-year period, the “Elizabeth Poor Laws” underwent several andnts to enhance the effectiveness of social relief.
The Whig Party intended to make changes to the “Elizabeth Poor Laws” mainly due to the “Speenhamland Act” passed in 1795.
At that ti, based on the investigation and research of 18 magistrates from Berkshire, they believed that relief should be given to the poor based on bread prices and family size, regardless of how much they actually earned, thereby ensuring the poor could receive a minimum inco to support the entire family.
In modern terms, that ant they decided to link the relief amount with the food price inflation index.
According to the magistrates’ calculations, assuming the price of 1 gallon of bread was 1 shilling, a poor person needed 3 shillings of inco per week to et their personal needs.
To sustain the needs of family mbers, the weekly inco should increase by 1 shilling and 6 pennies for each additional family mber. When the price of bread rose above 1 shilling by each penny, he would need to spend an additional 3 pennies per week, and each family mber would need to spend an additional 1 penny.
If his wage level did not et this standard, the parish should make up the difference in relief.
As a wealth redistribution plan advocating social equity, the proposal of the “Speenhamland Act” was undoubtedly successful, allowing many poor people who originally could not receive relief to get social aid and thereby et basic living needs.
However, for governnt finances, the passing of the “Speenhamland Act” was undoubtedly disastrous.
Due to the annual rise in prices, the ‘wage subsidy’ linked to the inflation index also surged ahead. Between 1817 and 1832 alone, national poor relief expenditure increased by 23%, overwhelming governnt finances.
Even worse, due to the wage differences being supplented by the governnt, many factory owners in labor-intensive industries would intentionally lower the wage rates because even if they paid only a penny per week, the parish would supplent the workers’ inco to et their basic needs.
Moreover, since the poor could only receive wage supplents in their domicile parish, this also restricted the free flow of labor to a certain extent.
All these factors combined naturally could not be tolerated by the freedom-embracing Whig Party.
From their perspective, “Abolition Act,” “Factory Law,” and “New Poor Law” are three reform asures, but actually, they constitute a set of consecutive moves.
The “Abolition Act” required a fiscal expenditure of 20 million British Pounds, but it could liberate slave labor, send these able-bodied adults into factories, and enhance factory work efficiency.
The “Factory Law” prohibited child workers under 9 years old from working in textile mills, and limited working hours for youth workers aged 9-18. This series of regulations were not only to protect children’s rights but also because children’s work efficiency was too low, and letting children work too early would directly harm Britain’s future developnt potential.
As for the jobs left after the clearing out of child workers, they would be filled by the able-bodied slave labor released by the “Abolition Act.”
And to achieve the first two acts, especially to gather the 20 million British Pounds needed for the “Abolition Act,” it was essential to make cuts in the growing expenditures of the “Elizabeth Poor Laws.”
After the parliantary reforms were completed, the Whig Party’s action to cut the “Elizabeth Poor Laws” had a very supportive foundation.
It’s well known that the land nobility, priests, bankers, and the army are the basic support of the Tory Party.
While the basic support of the Whig Party is industrial capital and the erging middle class.
After the parliantary reform in 1832, due to the expansion of the voting range, the voice of the middle class completely overshadowed the traditional land nobility.
And what annoyed these people most was the annually increasing Poor Relief Tax.
Because the Poor Relief Tax levied by the parish was applied to all residents within the parish, and each year’s Poor Relief Tax was calculated based on per acre of land or per British Pound of rent.
During Tory Party governance, these land nobles and big bankers generally felt that this little tax was insignificant to them, but it could stabilize the social environnt, so they had no intention of reforming the Poor Law.
But for the middle classes who had just gained the right to vote, and even those lower-middle classes who still hadn’t obtained voting rights, the annual Poor Relief Tax expenditure was indeed too painful.
Therefore, when the Whig Party proposed to reform the “Elizabeth Poor Laws” to reduce governnt financial expenditures, the vast majority among them supported it imnsely.
As for another basic support of the Whig Party – the industrial capitalists, although this group felt that the governnt’s abolition of wage subsidies would increase their labor costs.
However, after all, the Whig Party had already appeased them with the increased labor force released by the “Abolition Act.” Moreover, these industrial capitals also realized that abolishing wage subsidies would drive many poor labor force previously constrained to local parishes to seek job opportunities in erging industrial cities.
If carefully calculated, even if their employnt costs eventually increased, the range of wage increases should still be within acceptable limits. Not to ntion, these additional labor forces would also create more consumption demand, so the factory owners’ group did not express firm opposition to the “Poor Laws” reform.
However, what seed to the Whig Party as a deal where “All’s Well That Ends Well” did not an everyone considered it a good thing.
Especially Disraeli, this Tory newcor who advocates the classical spirit of England, he felt the reform of the “Poor Laws” was simply a catastrophe.
This Jewish lad seed to have already seen the beautiful, ancient English countryside being completely destroyed after this reform, with everyone, whether willing or forced, leaving behind the beautiful rural life and heading towards the monotonous despairing urban life.
Moreover, Disraeli also insisted that the reform of the “Poor Laws” would only further widen Britain’s wealth gap and exacerbate Britain’s social class conflicts.
“That bunch of Whig bastards are just ssing things up! I know this is an era of change, but it’s been just one year and they plan to uproot Britain’s foundation! Arthur, I’m not trying to bla you, but besides you, many bastards have co out from your University of London! Do you know Edwin Chadwick in the Lord Chancellor’s office?
He’s the one who used to be Bentham’s private secretary, that guy is simply a cold-blooded viper, and this ti, he’s in charge of the Poor Law Reform committee. That guy and Malthus are all snakes, devoid of human feelings, as if everything in their eyes is just numbers; he never sees others’ lives as human beings. As long as the result is good, the process doesn’t matter.
I usually call this kind of person ungrateful, heartless, but Mr. Edwin Chadwick tells that what he’s doing is called utilitarianism! To hell with utilitarianism!”
Arthur saw Disraeli’s chest rising and falling in anger, almost exposing his corset, and could only comfort him: “Benjamin, don’t be anxious, speak slowly.”
User Comments
0 comments from readers