Paper 3, Option 34.2: Poverty, public health and the state in Britain, c1780–1939 - 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780–1832 — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Paper 3, Option 34.2: Poverty, public health and the state in Britain, c1780–1939 - 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780–1832 explained
Paper 3, Option 34.2: Poverty, public health and the state in Britain, c1780–1939 - 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780–1832 covers 3 specification points, including The organisation of the parish-based relief… and Indoor relief in poorhouses, workhouses and….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
The organisation of the parish-based relief system; the problem of the ‘able-bodied pauper’; outdoor relief systems – Speenhamland, Roundsman and the Labour Rate.
This topic examines how poor relief was organised before 1834. Each parish administered relief, often through overseers of the poor and vestries, funded by a poor rate on property. The 'able-bodied pauper' posed a problem: giving relief to those who could work might discourage effort, yet denying it risked starvation and unrest. Outdoor relief, given outside a workhouse, included three systems. Speenhamland (from 1795) topped up wages based on bread prices and family size. The Roundsman system sent paupers to work for local farmers in turn, with wages subsidised from the poor rate. The Labour Rate set a parish-wide wage or provided work funded by a rate, aiming to reduce relief costs. These systems were criticised for encouraging dependency and lowering wages, leading to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act.
Indoor relief in poorhouses, workhouses and houses of correction; the impact of Gilbert’s Act 1782 and the Sturges-Bourne Acts 1818 and 1819.
Indoor relief meant housing paupers in institutions rather than paying outdoor doles. Poorhouses sheltered the aged and infirm; workhouses set the able-bodied to labour; houses of correction punished vagrants and petty offenders. Gilbert’s Act 1782 let parishes unite into incorporations, build poorhouses for the old, sick and orphaned, and keep the able-bodied on outdoor relief. The Sturges-Bourne Acts 1818 and 1819 allowed vestries to build or enlarge poorhouses and to borrow against parish poor rates, spreading institutional relief. Together they expanded capacity but varied by locality, so provision stayed uneven.
Pressures for change: financial and ideological arguments; the influence of Bentham’s Utilitarianism.
By the 1820s the old poor law faced mounting criticism. Financially, wartime spending and the allowance system pushed poor rates up, especially in southern agricultural parishes, alarming ratepayers and landowners. Ideologically, Malthus blamed allowances for encouraging population growth and idleness, while evangelicals and political economists stressed self-help and moral improvement. Bentham’s Utilitarianism judged institutions by their usefulness in producing the greatest happiness; his followers, including Edwin Chadwick, applied this to poverty, favouring central inspection, uniform rules and deterrent workhouses. These pressures shaped the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, though opposition and local resistance qualified its impact.
Your focus
- Describe the organisation of parish-based poor relief, including funding and administration.
- Explain the problem of the 'able-bodied pauper' and how it shaped relief policies.
- Compare the Speenhamland, Roundsman and Labour Rate systems, and assess their impact on paupers and parishes.
Show all 9 objectives
- Distinguish poorhouses, workhouses and houses of correction by purpose and inmate.
- Describe the provisions of Gilbert’s Act 1782 and the Sturges-Bourne Acts 1818 and 1819.
- Evaluate how far these Acts changed indoor relief provision before 1834.
- Identify financial and ideological pressures on the old poor law.
- Explain Bentham’s Utilitarianism and its application to poverty policy.
- Assess how far these pressures explain the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act.
Paper 3, Option 34.2: Poverty, public health and the state in Britain, c1780–1939 - 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780–1832 exam tips
Marking Points
- Describes the parish-based relief system, including the role of overseers, vestries, and the poor rate in funding relief.
- Explains why the 'able-bodied pauper' was seen as a problem, linking relief to concerns about idleness, wage levels, and rising poor rates.
- Outlines the Speenhamland system, including its wage top-up based on bread prices and family size, and its intended effect.
- Explains the Roundsman system, where paupers were sent to work for farmers in turn, with wages subsidised by the parish.
- Describes the Labour Rate, where a parish set a wage or provided work funded by a rate, and assesses its impact on relief costs and employment.
- Evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of outdoor relief systems and their contribution to the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act.
- Explains the three institutional types: poorhouses for the aged and infirm, workhouses for the able-bodied poor, houses of correction for vagrants and petty offenders.
- Shows Gilbert’s Act 1782 permitted parish unions and poorhouses for the aged, sick and orphaned while excluding the able-bodied from indoor relief.
- Explains that the Sturges-Bourne Acts 1818 and 1819 empowered vestries to build or enlarge poorhouses and to borrow against parish poor rates.
- Assesses impact: more indoor places and greater uniformity in some regions, but local variation and continued outdoor relief limited change.
- Links indoor relief to contemporary debates about cost, deterrence and the deserving versus undeserving poor.
- Explains financial pressures: rising poor rates, wartime expenditure and the cost of allowances in agricultural parishes.
- Explains ideological pressures: Malthusian fears about population, evangelical moral reform and political economy’s emphasis on self-help.
- Defines Bentham’s Utilitarianism as the greatest happiness principle and links it to usefulness, inspection and uniform administration.
- Connects Utilitarian influence to the 1834 Act through figures such as Chadwick and the idea of deterrent workhouses.
- Weighs the relative force of financial and ideological arguments and notes limits such as local opposition.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Use precise terms: 'overseers of the poor', 'vestry', 'poor rate', 'outdoor relief', 'Speenhamland', 'Roundsman', 'Labour Rate'.
- 💡When discussing the able-bodied pauper, link to contemporary debates about deserving and undeserving poor, and to rising poor rates.
- 💡Compare the three outdoor relief systems in a table to clarify their mechanisms and effects before writing an essay.
- 💡Anchor each institution with one named example of its inmate group to show precise knowledge.
- 💡Use the dates 1782, 1818 and 1819 to structure a paragraph on change over time.
- 💡Pair each pressure with a named thinker or report to show precise evidence.
- 💡Use a short causal chain from pressure to policy to demonstrate analysis.
- 💡Conclude on which pressure was most significant and justify with evidence.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing Speenhamland with the Roundsman system; correction: Speenhamland topped up wages based on bread prices, while the Roundsman system rotated paupers among employers with subsidised wages.
- Assuming all relief was outdoor; correction: indoor relief in workhouses also existed, and the balance varied by parish and period.
- Believing the Labour Rate guaranteed higher wages for all; correction: it often set a minimum wage or provided work, but could reduce overall employment and was not universally applied.
- Treating poorhouse, workhouse and house of correction as identical; correct by distinguishing their intended inmates and regimes.
- Claiming Gilbert’s Act compelled all parishes to build workhouses; correct by noting it was permissive, applied to united parishes, and provided poorhouses for the non-able-bodied.
- Assuming the Sturges-Bourne Acts allowed borrowing against county rates; correct by explaining they enabled borrowing on the security of parish poor rates.
- Reducing Utilitarianism to mere cost-cutting; correct by explaining its principle of the greatest happiness and its administrative implications.
- Attributing the 1834 Act solely to Bentham; correct by balancing financial, Malthusian and evangelical pressures.
- Confusing Malthus with Bentham; correct by separating Malthus’s population argument from Bentham’s utility principle.