The Shadow of Great Britain

Chapter 1163: Chapter 122: Irreverent Imperialists

And every time during festivals, or when local village gentlemen donate for charity, the parish will also provide essential goods to the poor such as food, clothing, fuel, and cleaning supplies. If lucky, sometimes they may even receive some 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 development 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 amendments 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 time, 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 income to support the entire family.

In modern terms, that meant 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 income per week to meet their personal needs.

To sustain the needs of family members, the weekly income should increase by 1 shilling and 6 pennies for each additional family member. 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 member would need to spend an additional 1 penny.

If his wage level did not meet 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 meet basic living needs.

However, for government 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 government finances.

Even worse, due to the wage differences being supplemented by the government, 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 supplement the workers’ income to meet their basic needs.

Moreover, since the poor could only receive wage supplements 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 measures, 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 development 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 parliamentary 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 emerging middle class.

After the parliamentary 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 environment, 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 government financial expenditures, the vast majority among them supported it immensely.

As for another basic support of the Whig Party – the industrial capitalists, although this group felt that the government’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 emerging industrial cities.

If carefully calculated, even if their employment costs eventually increased, the range of wage increases should still be within acceptable limits. Not to mention, 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 seemed to the Whig Party as a deal where “All’s Well That Ends Well” did not mean everyone considered it a good thing.

Especially Disraeli, this Tory newcomer who advocates the classical spirit of England, he felt the reform of the “Poor Laws” was simply a catastrophe.

This Jewish lad seemed 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 messing 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 blame you, but besides you, many bastards have come 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 time, 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 me 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.”