Year 10 Homework – Mr Lynch
Answer questions one and two of the Coursework.
1. Describe the Speenhamland system
2. Expalin the effects of the Speenhamland system
There is a markscheme here Questions and markscheme
And a document we used in class that will be helpful here Poor Lawsystem
Check out the courswork links on the right hand side for more support and PowerPoint presentations.
19 comments so far
Leave a reply
1) The Speenhamland system was set up in 1793 and it gave people an allowance so that they could survive in the tough times in which they were in, it was a relief to them. the allowance dependded upon the rising costs of bread, if the price of bread increased so did the allowance. The local parish would dispence/hand out the relief to the people living in the local area. it was introducced because of the old poor law costing too much and also because of England became involved with the Napolionic War.
The Speenhamland system had a possitive affect and saved thousands of families from starvation. it done this by topping up a families incoming wage. if a mans wage was only 6 shillings and he needed 9 shillings to survive and feed his family, the parish would top them up to the amount that they needed. the money they got depended upon two things, the rising cost of bread and the amount of children that was in the family. back then bread was the main food sauce, and if people couldn’t aford it, they would starve.
But the Spennhanland systemalso had a negative affect on the people. the poor new that if they had more children, they would recieve more money. the Speenhamland system, in ways, encouraged people to be lazy, have more children, increase the population and make things even worse. the Speenhamland system also encouraged employers to keep the wages that the employees were paid, low, because they new that they would be topped off by the parish for employing people.
so as you can see, the Speenhamland system had lots of different affects, good and bad.
scott cunnington 10si
:} :] :} :] :} :] :} :]
Question 1: The Speenhamland system was discovered in the early 19th century, this system helped the poor afford essential items for example bread. They did this by a local parish going around there village and topping up family wages, the parish topped up there wages depending on the number of children and the price of bread. Although the wages only got topped up to an amount that they could survie on .
Question 2: There are a number of effects that the Speenhamland system had.Firstly the syetem encouraged the poor too have bigger familes as they knew that there wages would be topped up by the Parish, therefore they would have more money to spend. Also it encouraged the labours to be lazy when they was at work or not work at all, as they always knew they would have money paid in by the parish. This encouraged more people not too work this meant that the poor level rose. Lastly employers kept there wages low as they didn’t need to worry about the employer haveing no money tp buy essentials as the parish would help. The Speenhamland system had many effects overall most of these effects were bad as they encourage more people to be poor.
Question 1
The Speenhamland System was first established in the early 19th Century. It operated as the Parish went round the villages “topping-up” the wages for the labourers to survive, for instance if a man earned 6s (shillings) but needed 9s the Parish would give them labourer 3s a week to survive. It also gave basic amount of money so families could afford bread as the prices had risen. Also depending on how many children couples were having, decided on how much relief they would receive from the Parish.
Question 2
The Speenhamland System created many positive and negative effects. Effects for the system being negative could consist of… Couples felt encouraged to have more children because they knew they would receive more relief then they would with fewer children. This meant that the population would increase leaving the Parish with less money to give to other deserving families. Another reason is the labourer’s employers would purposefully lower the wages, as they knew the parish would subsidies the costs. Therefore, they would have more money to buy equipment or keep it for themselves. It made workers to become idle. As they knew, the Parish would top up their wages they did not bother going to work, leading to the unemployment rose. A positive effect received from the Speenhamland System is that it has helped saving families from starvation. Because the relief received from the Parish was able to pay for food such as bread.
The speenhamland syestem is when the parish of the town or village provides money for the poor. The poor were given relife for there work. The poor relife was payed by the rate payers. The bread prices were so low so it was hard to get enough money.
The effects of the speenhamland syestem was that it saved people from starvation by giving the poor money to by food and services. It kept workers quiet at a differicalt time by making wages the same for all so that it was fair by for rich peole. The bad thing about it was that there were lots of bad things. The cost of helping the poor increased the amount of children that they had to get more money for the family the employment kept wages low they did not run out of money to solve the poverty.
Question 1
The speenhamland system was designed so that the Parish could help poor people out. They did this by topping up people’s wages. The more the prices of bread rised, the more te wages were topped up. Also the more children there were in the family the more wages they got. The money for these wages came from poor rates. These were paid by the middle class. Also the money from these poor rates, went to help pay for outdoor relief, which were controlled by volenteers, called overseers.
Question 2
There were positive and negative effects of the speenhamland system. One of the positive effects was the fact that the speenhamland system saved many people from starvation. They did this as the Parish topped up wages, depending on the price of bread & amount of people in the household. This ment that people could afford bread so they had something to eat & feed their families. Another positive effect is that it kept workers quiet. This is because they were recieving help. Meaning they got a better home life, so they didn’t have to work on an empty stomach or when they were tired. This was also because the workers were happier as they were getting more money for working. This ment that there were less riots.
One of the negative effects was that more people were getting lazy. This was because they didn’t have to work as hard as their wages were being topped up anyway. This ment that more people became poor as they were lazy, which increase poor rates, making the tax payers unhappy, causing riots. Another negative effect is the fact that employers started to lower the wages of their workers, as they knew that eitherway they would get their wages topped up anyway, so then they didn’t have to pay their workers as much. This ment that people started having riots as the cost of the poor rates was increasing even more.
=] Evie =]
Question 1: The Speenhamland system operated in the south of England and helped labourers by giving them an allowance. The allowance depended on the price of bread and the amount of children a family had – the more children = more allowance. The allowance was ‘topped up’ by the local parish, as the employer didn’t pay all of the allowance to save money. The labourers were grateful although their allowance was only enough for them to survive.
Question 2: There were many effects of the Speenhamland system, one of which was that it saved many people from starvation, as it gave labourers money to buy some simple food eg. bread. The poor realised that if they had more children, they would have more money coming in, so thats exactly what most families did. Another effect was that it encouraged labourers to become lazy and unwilling, therefore if they stopped working, they would still paid the same amount of money. Employers kept wages low because they knew that the parish would top the wages to the correct amount and the poor would only have enough money to live on the basic things – no luxuries. The parish had no control over the cost of helping the poor, as the poor could have another child at anytime and the cost of bread could rise at anytime. Another effect was it kept workers quiet at a difficult time as the workers were given enough money to stay on their feet so they didn’t complain to anyone.
The Speenhamland system was created to help the poor. The local Parish looked after the paupers which are the deserving poor. People called overseers gave the poor the money they needed and topped up there wages to afford the cost of living. How much the labours were given was dependant on the price of bread and how many children you had.
The Speenhamland system had both positive and negative effects on people for a number of reasons. The negative reasons are as followed; the system encouraged workers to be lazy because they knew that the parish would top up their wages as a result of this workers thought they didn’t have to work as hard because they knew the parish would simply gibe them the money they needed anyway. Another negative effect was that it also encourages workers to have more children. The more children you had the more money you would be given. This is because you need more money to support a greater number of people. But once again this lost money. Yet another negative effect is that the shop owners knew that the parish would top up wages as a result of this they didn’t pay people above the very minimum. They were making a profit at the parish’s expense. Shop owners also made a profit by putting bread prices up because the parishes topped up wages for that too. A positive reason was that the Speenhamland system stopped riots and disturbances’ by giving money to support people as a result of this people stopped causing riots over cost. Another good reason is that families have good support with the extra income therefore people unable or finding it hard to work can still provide for there families. Over all there are more negative effects than positive. I think that the Speenhamland system wasn’t very effective and should have had more boundaries and rules to control amount of money given out.
1.The Speenhamland system was controlled by the parish in a local area. only the people who can afford to give money was the middle class and richer. The money was given to paupers and poor laborers to top up wages or as an allowance. This was so they could at least afford to buy enough bread for everyone in the family. the amount given was determined by the always increasing price of bread and depending on the amount of children in the family.
2.The Speenhamland system affected most people mainly in the south of england because there was positive and negative effects. The parishes were taken the advantage by the farmers because they lowered the wages therefore they would have more money to keep for them selves. The parishes therefore gave the poor more money so they can et enough bread for the week. This was so less people died of starvation.
also some laborers pride and self respect was damaged. This was because they could do lots or little work yet they still got the same amount of money anyway. some were angry that even though they earned the money to help their family on their own they still get given money anyway.
Question 1: The Speenhamland System was a system which was introduced in order to help the current poor of the time. The system required the parishes to help the poor in the area surrounding the parish and this involved the parishes topping up or giving the pauper’s wages. This then enabled the poor to buy the bare essentials such as bread so that they could live a healthy life. The amount of money that the parishes gave to the poor depended on two factors; the cost of bread as the wages had to be topped up so that the poor could buy the bread (the cost was constantly changing), and the other factor was the amount of children that the pauper had because the pauper would have needed enough money to buy bread for all of his or her family. The Parishes received the funding for the system from taxes paid by locals who could afford to pay which was generally middle class people or higher.
Question 2: The Speenhamland system had a number of positive and negative effects. One of the positive effects was that it dramatically reduced riots and revolts from the poor and also stopped the possibility of a revolution. This was because the poor were living a fairly comfortable life as they were being given enough money to buy food and other bare essentials, and therefore they were happier and didn’t have anything to riot or complain about. Another positive effect of the system was that less of the poor were dying and poverty was reduced, as the poor were getting money to buy the bare essentials such as bread they were not dying of starvation and had enough to survive upon. Also as the extra money gave them the chance to buy the essentials of life they were no longer in poverty.
There were also a number of negative effects and one of these was the fact that the System encouraged the poor to be lazy. This was because the poor new that their wages would be topped up no matter what they did so they could not go to work and still be paid the equivalent of a wage which would enable them to live a normal life. Also the system encouraged a higher population of paupers. This was because the more children that a person had the more money they get from the parishes (as the children needed feeding); the poor then started having more children just so that they could gain more money. As a result the amount of poor people was increasing as the children were born into poor families and could not receive education in order to gain a job. Another effect of the system was that the people who employed the poor started taking advantage of the system and paid the paupers less money for their work. They did this as they knew that the workers’ wages would be topped up anyway so then they could make a profit and the workers would still be paid enough. All this meant that the cost of helping the poor was rising rapidly.
1) The Speenhamland system was set up in 1793 and was created to give the poor a chance to earn enough money to feed their families. If a man was working, the parish would top up his wages so he had enough money to feed his family, for example, if a man earned 6 shillings, the parish would give him an extra 3 shillings to make it 9. This is because he would have needed 9 shillings to be able to afford bread, and therefore save themselves from starving. The amount that the parishes gave to the families depended on the current cost of bread in the country, so if the cost rose, the money given to the families would also rise, to make sure they could afford it. If it dropped, the money paid would also drop, so they weren’t receiving too much, or too little, money. The money paid also depended on the amount of children in the family, for example, if there were only 2 children in the family, the parishes would pay them just enough money to pay for the food for the entire family. If there was 5 children, the parish would top up the wages to account for this, so they could afford to survive. The parishes made sure that they only paid enough money to afford the bread, and therefore they didn’t pay too much money, or too little.
2) The Speenhamland system created many effects, both negative and positive – however, there are more negative than positive effects. An example of a positive effect is that it kept workers quiet in times of war. While the war with France was going on, the bread prices were going up rapidly due to the inability to have it traded from abroad. As a result of this, many people couldn’t afford bread, which was a standard food source. If many people couldn’t afford food, it would most likely lead to a revolt and riots. As the parishes made sure that the poor could afford bread, this meant that they were much less likely to riot against the government, as they had nothing to riot about. Another good effect of the system was that people were saved from starving. This is because people had enough money to buy food for their family, and therefore never went hungry.
A negative effect of the Speenhamland system was that the cost of keeping the poor paid was extremely high. This is because of many reasons, one being that workers were encouraged to be lazy at work. This is because they knew that even though their employers paid there very low wages, the parishes would top it up, and they therefore would always have enough food to survive. Another point, based on this effect, is that employers were paying very poor wages, because they knew the parishes would top it up. This meant that they could get maximum profit, with minimum cost, and therefore meant that it cost even more for the parishes and tax payers. Another negative effect is that families were encouraged to have many children, because they knew that the parishes would give them even more money if their family was bigger. All of these points meant that parishes had to pay a lot of money to keep the poor fed, and as a result of this, tax payers had to pay even more money to the parishes.
By Matt Parker
1. the speenhamland system was set up in the early 19th century by the parish. It worked by topping up the wages of every working man, in order to give them enough money to be able to buy a loaf of bread each week in order to surrive. however the amount of money given out from the parish would depend on by how much bread prices had risen, and by how many children were in thh family, so that they could be enough money to provide bread for their whole family.
2.the speenhamland system created many effects, both positive and negative. all of which was part of the cause for the introduction of the new porr law. firstly the speenhamland system encouraged families to have more children. This was becuase they knew that if the had more children they would keep on recieving even more money from the parish. becuase of this the population increased hugely which was leaving the parish with a lot less money.
Although there was a lot of negative effects, there was also positive too. One of these was that people were forced to look carefully at the problem of peverty becuase they did not want a por revelation. As a result of these the poor were thought of differently and were put into to groups. These were “the deserving poor” and “the idle poor”.
The speenhamland was set up by the parish in the 19th century to help the poor. It did this by having several methods in which to help them, the most expensive one of these was called “outdoor relief” in which they parish topped up the workers wages so that they could feed themselves but only enough to buy bread and support their family, so the more children you had the more money you would get which caused the population to go sky high and the parish soon couldnt cope with this rise in population and more money had to be paid out, this caused a massive strain on the government. Because the amount of money paid to them depended on the amount of children they had and the cost of bread, during wars it made the cost go up even more which in turn raised the cost of poor relief which raised the cost on the governemnt which raised the cost of taxes. this caused idleness in the workers because they didnt need to better themselves because they knew their wages would be topped up by the parish so it gave no incentive to better themselves. This also caused people to get married earlier and have more children sooner than previously done because they would get more money for doing so.
2)the speenhamland system caused many negative and positive effects however ther were more negative than positive. one of the negative effects were that the population were becoming lazy because they knew their wages would be topped up if they needed it so it didnt encourage them to better themselves and also the employers of the poor people kept the wages low because they too knew that their wages would be topped up so the employers paid the lowest possible wsage to them workers who then inturn because they didnt earn much money, married early and had many children because this would raise the amount of poor relief they would get from the parish. although their were negative effects from this it most likely stopped a reveloution whihc were happening all over europe during this time period and because the people were being paid for and treated where possible in most cases the people didnt revolt although their were swing riots happening because of machinery taking over jobs, especcialy in the agricultural area’s of britain.
3) the rising cost of poor relief was one of the key factors in the introduction of a new poor law and possibly the most important. i agree with this statement because of the rising cost of the poor relief it made the government put taxes up and up and up which caused many of the tax payers to pay more and more money and because the more money the government was paying out to them, would seem wasted because each year they paid more and mroe money but the amount of poor people and the cost of it was ever rising. this needed attention so the government ordered an ivestigation and the report showed that money was being “wasted” on making the place look better and more hospitibale for the poor in the workhouses so the government ordered workhouses to be at the quality and hospitibility of the lowest paid job. this cut back on losses dramaticaly and they also stopped outside relief which was the topping up of wages which also stopped the cost rising. these two things were dramtically changed from what they were during theold poor law and what they were in the new poor law, standard of living in a workhouse dropped, the hygein standard dropped, and generally only the very, very desperate entered the workhouse because it was almost a certain “last resort” for people that couldnt cope.
1) The Speenhamland system was set up in 1793 and was created to give the poor a chance to earn enough money to feed their families. If a man was working, the parish would top up his wages so he had enough money to feed his family, for example, if a man earned 6 shillings, the parish would give him an extra 3 shillings to make it 9. This is because he would have needed 9 shillings to be able to afford bread, and therefore save themselves from starving. The amount that the parishes gave to the families depended on the current cost of bread in the country, so if the cost rose, the money given to the families would also rise, to make sure they could afford it. If it dropped, the money paid would also drop, so they weren’t receiving too much, or too little, money. The money paid also depended on the amount of children in the family, for example, if there were only 2 children in the family, the parishes would pay them just enough money to pay for the food for the entire family. If there was 5 children, the parish would top up the wages to account for this, so they could afford to survive. The parishes made sure that they only paid enough money to afford the bread, and therefore they didn’t pay too much money, or too little.
2) The Speenhamland system created many effects, both negative and positive – however, there are more negative than positive effects. An example of a positive effect is that it kept workers quiet in times of war. While the war with France was going on, the bread prices were going up rapidly due to the inability to have it traded from abroad. As a result of this, many people couldn’t afford bread, which was a standard food source. If many people couldn’t afford food, it would most likely lead to a revolt and riots. As the parishes made sure that the poor could afford bread, this meant that they were much less likely to riot against the government, as they had nothing to riot about. Another good effect of the system was that people were saved from starving. This is because people had enough money to buy food for their family, and therefore never went hungry.
A negative effect of the Speenhamland system was that the cost of keeping the poor paid was extremely high. This is because of many reasons, one being that workers were encouraged to be lazy at work. This is because they knew that even though their employers paid there very low wages, the parishes would top it up, and they therefore would always have enough food to survive. Another point, based on this effect, is that employers were paying very poor wages, because they knew the parishes would top it up. This meant that they could get maximum profit, with minimum cost, and therefore meant that it cost even more for the parishes and tax payers. Another negative effect is that families were encouraged to have many children, because they knew that the parishes would give them even more money if their family was bigger. All of these points meant that parishes had to pay a lot of money to keep the poor fed, and as a result of this, tax payers had to pay even more money to the parishes.
3) A new poor law was introduced because of a number of reasons, one of which being cost. Cost effected the need for a new law because the old one was costing so much money, this is because the parishes had to to up workers wages so they could afford to buy food for their family, as a result of this, however, employers decided to pay their workers very low wages because they knew that the parishes would pay the remainder of their wages and therefore they had maximum profit and minimum cost.
The rising cost affected the majority of the country because the parishes needed to keep paying more and more money, this meant that the middle and upper class people needed to pay more and more taxes so the parish could keep paying the poor. As a result of this, people were spending a lot of money to keep the system working, and therefore faced the risk of becoming poor themselves. Eventually the cost of keeping the system running almost reached eight million pounds, this was much higher that just a few years ago, and therefore shows just how high the cost of keeping the poor happy was rising. The cost was still rising rapidly, and it was becoming to much for the government, and all the tax payers to handle. This meant that the old poor law was inefficient and desperately needed changing before the cost became too high to control.
In the 1830s there was a number of riots, known as the “swing riots” due to their fictional character “Captain Swing” . These riots began because farmers were loosing their jobs and getting poor wages due to the introduction of machines. Farm labourers demanded the destruction the machines, and rises of their wages. If farms refused to comply with the labourers, they received threats, signed by “Captain Swing”. If the farmers still ignored these threats, their machines would be destroyed and their crops would be sabotaged. Without these crops, the ingredients for creating bread locally was not available This caused the cost to rise, as the price of bread was increasing, this is because the the ingredients were unobtainable. This means that const was even worse in Britain, because the parishes had to be given even more to the poor to accommodate the rising cost of bread.
Overall, I think that cost was the most important reason for the law to be changed due to it’s large number of negative effects.
The speenhamland system was discovered in the 19th century. This was setup by local parishes around villages that topped up wages for the deserving poor. If the prices of bread went up or they had more children, families, would get paid more money to live on. However, they only got enough to survive so they couldn’t get any richer.
The speenhamland system affected the poor law in many ways. There were many disadvantages. Many of these included the encouragement of lazy workers, lower wages and large families. This happened because people were rewarded for having children, meaning they could survive without working as hard and for as much money. This led to a rise in the cost of bread which the parish could not control, on the other hand it was only a short term solution and it successfully prevented rioting in France along with the obvious, prevention of starvation.
In conclusion I would say this system although it had many disadvantages as a short term solution, it worked fairy well. However, if this system was used over a longer period of time, it would cause many economic problems.
A new law to deal with the poor was introduced because of the cosy of the old poor law was increasing hugely by the year 1834. Things weren’t getting any better for the law because middle class people and rich were the only people allowed to vote. As a result of this the voters weren’t happy because of their risen taxes to pay for the poor. This means the rich could change this by voting for different things to lower their taxes. If the price of bread went up or the poor had more children they would get more money. This would also cause taxes to rise. The rich people had to pay more and more every few months. However, the poor didn’t seem to be getting any richer, and the population increased rapidly. This was not an equal balance and there were now more poor than rich. This meant that the rich were paying out a lot of money and it wasn’t being much help to the poor.
Also people who didn’t have much money would get put into workhouses to work, however, the workhouses were too comfortable and the poor didn’t mind working in them. This encouraged people to not work or earn money and would still get fed, and have somewhere too live in a workhouse.
1) The Speenhamland system was set up in 1793, it was created to give the poor a chance to survive by topping up workers wages so they could afford food to feed their family. The amount that the parishes payed was determined by the cost of the bread, so the higher the cost of bread the more the parishes had to pay the worker, and it was also determined by the number of children in the family, as the more children the more expensive it was to feed a family.
2) The Speenhamland system had alot of effects, some are positive and some are negative. A positive effects of The Speenhamland system was that workers kept quiet in the war, as the war in france was happening, the cost of bread dramatically increased, which caused alot of problems to poor family as bread was a basic food source, because of the Speenhamland system the familys where able to by the food to survive. Another positive effect of the Speenhamland system is that, people where saved from starvation as they could get the food to live, this is good as it means people didn’t die for meaningless reasons.
A negative reason of the Speenhamland system is, that the price for the parishes keeping the poor’s wages topped up was becoming extremely high there are many reasons for this, one of these reasons is that workers where being encouraged to slack off with their work, as they knew that they would be getting the money they need from the parish, so they could by the food to survive anyway. Another point that caused this effect is that employers where keeping wages to a minimum, this is because they knew that the parish would top up the labourers wages anyway, this meant that the employers wouldn’t have to waste their money to pay their workers as the parish had to top them up however much money was needed. Another negative point is that, people where encouraged to have reproduce because, the more children in the family highered the amount of money that the family got, this also led onto another problem which was that the population in those time increased drasticlly due to the Speenhamland system and the parishes had to pay more and more money while the population grew bigger. These 3 points all link into the negative effects of the Speenhamland system and how it costed alot to keep it running, which also meant that rate payers had to pay more to keep the system running.
3) There are a number of reasons why a new poor law was introduced, one of these reasons is because of the cost. Cost effected the need of a new poor law because, parishes where having to pay alot of money to feed the growing population of poor people, the population of poor people was growing as the old poor law encouraged people to reproduce as the more children in a family the more money the family got, so as more and more poor familys grew, so did the cost of keeping those poor familys alive. The cost of the old poor law was also affecting the country as the parish got it’s money from middle and higher-class people, so as the cost for the parishes rose, the middle and higher-class people had to pay more and more taxes to keep the poor law running, which then could led them to being poor themselves. The cost of keeping the old poor law running came up to 8 million pounds, as the poor population was growing, this shows that the old poor law was insufficient and needed to be changed. Another reason how the goverment knew the old poor law wasn’t working was because they got to men named Nassam Senior and Edwin Chadwick to write a report about the old poor law. Nassau Senior was famous for his studies in the economy while Edwin Chadwick was determined to show the bad point about the poor law. The report have 13 volumes of writing which talked about how the old poor law is causing porverty and how it is flawed. When the report was handed in the goverment decided that a new poor law should be made, and with help from the report, which showed ways in which to improve the poor law to make it more effective, the new poor law was made, 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.
Overall, i think that it was very necessary for a new poor law to be made, as the old poor law had alot of flaws, cost and population for example.
-UPDATED!-
-PRINT THIS ONE-
1) The Speenhamland system was set up in 1793, it was created to give the poor a chance to survive by parishes topping up workers wages so they could just afford food to feed their family. The amount that the parishes payed was determined by the cost of the bread, so the higher the cost of bread the more the parishes had to pay the worker, and it was also determined by the number of children in the family, as the more children the more expensive it was to feed a family.
2) The Speenhamland system had alot of effects, some are positive and some are negative. A positive effects of The Speenhamland system was that workers kept quiet in the war, as the war in france was happening, the cost of bread dramatically increased, which caused alot of problems to poor family as bread was a basic food source, because of the Speenhamland system the familys where able to by the food to survive. Another positive effect of the Speenhamland system is that, people where saved from starvation as they could get the food to live, this is good as it means people didn’t die for meaningless reasons.
A negative reason of the Speenhamland system is, that the price for the parishes keeping the poor’s wages topped up was becoming extremely high there are many reasons for this, one of these reasons is that workers where being encouraged to slack off with their work, as they knew that they would be getting the money they need from the parish, so they could by the food to survive anyway. Another point that caused this effect is that employers where keeping wages to a minimum, this is because they knew that the parish would top up the labourers wages anyway, this meant that the employers wouldn’t have to waste their money to pay their workers as the parish had to top them up however much money was needed. Another negative point is that, people where encouraged to have reproduce because, the more children in the family highered the amount of money that the family got, this also led onto another problem which was that the population in those time increased drasticlly due to the Speenhamland system and the parishes had to pay more and more money while the population grew bigger. These 3 points all link into the negative effects of the Speenhamland system and how it costed alot to keep it running, which also meant that rate payers had to pay more to keep the system running.
3) i agree with this statement completely as, there are a number of reasons why a new poor law was introduced, one of these reasons is because of the cost of the old poor law. Cost effected the need of a new poor law because, parishes where having to pay alot of money to feed the growing population of poor people, the population of poor people was growing as the old poor law encouraged people to reproduce as the more children in a family the more money the family got, so as more and more poor familys grew, so did the cost of keeping those poor familys alive. The cost of the old poor law was also affecting the country as the parish got it’s money from middle and higher-class people, so as the cost for the parishes rose, the middle and higher-class people had to pay more and more taxes to keep the poor law running, which then could led them to being poor themselves. The cost of keeping the old poor law running came up to 8 million pounds, as the poor population was growing, this shows that the old poor law was insufficient and needed to be changed. Another reason how the goverment knew the old poor law wasn’t working was because they got to men named Nassam Senior and Edwin Chadwick to write a report about the old poor law. Nassau Senior was famous for his studies in the economy while Edwin Chadwick was determined to show the bad point about the poor law. The report have 13 volumes of writing which talked about how the old poor law is causing porverty and how it is flawed. When the report was handed in the goverment decided that a new poor law should be made, and with help from the report, which showed ways in which to improve the poor law to make it more effective, the new poor law was made, 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.
Overall, i think that it was very necessary for a new poor law to be made, as the old poor law had alot of flaws, cost and population for example.
Question 1: The Speenhamland system was discovered in the early 19th century, this system helped the poor afford essential items for example bread. They did this by a local parish going around there village and topping up family wages, the parish topped up there wages depending on the number of children and the price of bread. Although the wages only got topped up to an amount that they could survie on .
Question 2: There are a number of effects that the Speenhamland system had.Firstly the syetem encouraged the poor too have bigger familes as they knew that there wages would be topped up by the Parish, therefore they would have more money to spend. Also it encouraged the labours to be lazy when they was at work or not work at all, as they always knew they would have money paid in by the parish. This encouraged more people not too work this meant that the poor level rose. Lastly employers kept there wages low as they didn’t need to worry about the employer haveing no money tp buy essentials as the parish would help. The Speenhamland system had many effects overall most of these effects were bad as they encourage more people to be poor.
Question 3: I agree with this statememt, as the old poor law was makking the country even poorer this was due to many families takking advanatge of the Old poor law. They would do this by haveing more children which would increase the amount of money they would get, this would higher the amount that people would have to pay to the parish because there would be more money needed. As the cost of running the old poor law went up to 8 million the people that was paying which was the middle class and the higher class as they would have to pay out more this would make them poor, which if the old poor carried on would of made the whole country a poor country. Another reasons for them takking away the old poor is because two men named Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick write a report on the Old poor law this report was 13 volumes long, this shows that there was many bad pionts to the Old poor Law and that it needed to be changed. When the two men handed in the report to the goverement they decieded to make a new poor law as in the report it said how they could improve and and how to make it more affective. The improvements that was in the report was to have seperate workhouses for the ages, infirm, children, able-bodied females and Able-bodied males. Another one the improvements that was in the report was that they should have groups of parishes and a central authourity should be established in order to enfore these measures.
In conclusion it is good that the goverment made a new poor as the old poor law had many bad pionts and it was making the number of poor people higher.
The Speenhamland system was created to help the poor. The local parish looked after the paupers which are the deserving poor. People called overseers gave the poor the money they needed and topped up there wages to afford the cost of living. How much the laborers were given was dependant on the price of bread; the higher the cost of bread the more the parishes gave the worker, and the number of children in the family; the more children you had, the more money was given because the cost would be more expensive the more children. The parishes were funded by tax payers; this would have been people with money such as the middle class or higher.
The Speenhamland system had both positive and negative effects on people for a number of reasons. The negative reasons are as followed; the system encouraged workers to be lazy because they knew that the parish would top up their wages as a result of this workers thought they didn’t have to work as hard because they knew the parish would simply give them the money they needed anyway so they thought they could just be lazy and not work to there full potential. Another negative effect was that it also encourages workers to have more children. The more children you had the more money you would be given, this is because you need more money to support a greater number of people. Because of the workers laziness the parish had to give money to support the children. But once again this lost money. Yet another negative effect is that the shop owners knew that the parish would top up wages as a result of this they didn’t pay people above the very minimum. They were making a profit at the parish’s expense. Shop owners also made a profit by putting bread prices up because the parishes had to top up the workers money for the cost of bread; the higher the cost of bread the more money the parish would lose. A positive reason was that the Speenhamland system stopped riots and disturbances. This was because the poor could lead a fairly good life with the money with funded there food and shelter. Another good reason is that families have good support with the extra income therefore people unable or finding it hard to work can still provide for there families. Over all there are more negative effects than positive. I think that the Speenhamland system wasn’t very effective and should have had more boundaries and rules to control amount of money given out.
There are a number of reasons why the new poor law was introduced; one of these reasons was because of the cost. The old poor law cost too much so there was need of a new poor law. The effect of cost was because the parish had to pay the workers money for food and everyday expenditures and the population was growing because the workers new that the more children you had, the more the parish had to pay. This encouraged people to have more children to get more money, so as the families grew, so did the cost of there upkeep. The cost of the old poor law came up to 8 million pounds, this was all coming from the tax payers, which was the middle class people and up. In the end the tax payers because they were paying so much money for the upkeep of the poor, it ran a risk of them becoming poor aswell. This proved the old poor law needed to change.
Another reason the government knew the poor law needed to be changed was a report written by Nassam Senior and Edwin Chadwick on the old poor law. Edwin Chadwick was convinced the old poor law was bad and wanted to prove it and Nassam Senior was every well known and famous for his studies. The report was 13 volumes long, including why the poor law needed to be changed and suggestions how. Some of the recommendations were separate workhouses for the aged, infirm, children, able-bodied females and able-bodied males. When the report was given in the government knew changes had to be made.
In conclusion I think it was necessary for the old poor law to be changed, as it had many flaws.
Better One
1) The speenhamland system was introduced in the late 19th century, this gave an average working man an extra allowance so he could feed his family and stop them from starving, for example if a man’s wages was 5 shillings and the parish that worked in that village would give him an extra 3 shillings which would then make his wages 8 shillings. This meant that the man would be able to afford a loaf of bread. Altough the the extra amount that the
parish gave them would vary depending on the price of bread and the amount of children which was in that family at the time.
2) The speenhamland system had many positive and negative pionts. Firstly there are many positive effects that the speenhamland system had one of the many resaons was because it stopped riots that the poor caused as they had fiarly normal lives as they could afford food and shelter. Another reason is if someone couldn’t work to there pontial because they were ill or had a health problem there families was still supported by the parishes money.
The negative resons for the speenhamland system was it caused many people to become lazy as they knew there money would just be topped up by the parish, therefore they wouldn’t work there hardest which meant business’s would fail due to the lack of hard work. Another reason is it encouraged familes have more children as they knew they would have more money, as a result the popualtion of poor increased as the familes were increasing this meant the parish would give them money therefore money was still lost.
3)Question 3: I agree with this statememt, as the old poor law was makking the country even poorer this was due to many families takking advanatge of the Old poor law. They would do this by haveing more children which would increase the amount of money they would get, this would higher the amount that people would have to pay to the parish because there would be more money needed. As the cost of running the old poor law went up to 8 million the people that was paying which was the middle class and the higher class as they would have to pay out more this would make them poor, which if the old poor carried on would of made the whole country a poor country. Another reasons for them takking away the old poor is because two men named Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick write a report on the Old poor law this report was 13 volumes long, this shows that there was many bad pionts to the Old poor Law and that it needed to be changed. When the two men handed in the report to the goverement they decieded to make a new poor law as in the report it said how they could improve and and how to make it more affective. The improvements that was in the report was to have seperate workhouses for the ages, infirm, children, able-bodied females and Able-bodied males. Another one the improvements that was in the report was that they should have groups of parishes and a central authourity should be established in order to enfore these measures.
In conclusion it is good that the goverment made a new poor as the old poor law had many bad pionts and it was making the number of poor people higher.