| LOCAL GOVERNMENT SINCE 1800 | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
See also | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
The system of local government as we know it
today (1973) is to a great extent the product of nineteenth century reforms.
Since the reign of Elizabeth I the parish had been responsible for the care of
the poor and aged, and also for the maintenance of roads within its area.
These responsibilities had increased enormously with the general increase in
population, with the changes in agriculture and industry generally known as
the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions, and with the distress and
unemployment resulting from the long period of wars with France between 1793
and 1815. Parishes were no longer able to deal satisfactorily with the social
and financial problems which faced them. About half the parishes of Somerset
had built poorhouses where the sick and aged poor could be accommodated, but
only a few, for example Taunton, Yeovil, Stoke St Gregory, North Curry, Bruton
and Frome, had provided workhouses where poor people could be employed as well
as helped. Most parishes gave 'out-door relief' in the form of small payments
of money raised by parish rates to help those in need. The problem is revealed
by the increase in this expenditure as shown by two examples from opposite
ends of the county. At Minehead, between 1740 and 1794, expenditure rose from
£178 to £359, but at Frome an alarming increase from £1971 to £3125 took
place in the two years from 1793 to 1795. The Berkshire magistrates at
Speenhamland in 1795 introduced a system of supplementing the very low wages
of agricultural workers with allowances from the poor-rates, dependent on the
price of bread and the size of the worker's family. The system was adopted
in Somerset to keep wages low despite the fact that the main effect was to
increase expenditure from the rates. Some figures again show the extent of the
problem. In the period between 1803 and 1831 the increase in poor-rate at
Batcombe was from £229 to £568, at Bedminster from £991 to £3498, at
Yeovil from £936 to £1851 and at North Curry from £475 to £1102. A rising
of agricultural workers in the Southern counties, including some parts of
Somerset, in 18301, forced Parliament to find a solution. It was realised
that the parish was too small a unit to be effective and so, by the Poor Law
Amendment Act of 1834, parishes were grouped into Unions. Each Union was
centred on a town or large village where a Union workhouse was built. Outdoor
relief was administered by the Union under much stricter controls, and tests
of need were applied. The scheme was under the direction of Boards of
Guardians, including the justices of the peace for the area and other members
elected by local ratepayers in each Union, while central control was in the
hands of three Poor Law Commissioners in London, whose secretary, Edwin
Chadwick, planned and organised the new system. In Somerset, Unions were
established at Axbridge, Bath, Bedminster and Long Ashton, Bridgwater, Chard,
Clutton, Dulverton, Frome, Keynsham, Langport, Shepton Mallet, Taunton,
Wellington, Wells, Williton, Wincanton and Yeovil. The new workhouses were
efficient and economical to run, but proved to be harsh and even brutal in
practice, and were feared and hated by the poor. Charles Dickens describes the
terrifying conditions in a Union workhouse in his book 'Oliver Twist', but
these were gradually improved during the century. One redeeming feature was
that the Guardians were obliged to provide education for the children in their
care. The Guardians of the poor were abolished under the Local Government Act,
1929, which transferred their functions to the county and county borough
councils. This began the process of providing assis tance through other
general services rather than by way of poor relief, a process which was
developed by the State with old age pensions, State insurance and (after 1948)
under the National Assistance and subsequent Acts. The workhouses became
redundant, having lost their original purpose, but some of the old buildings
still are used for hospitals and remain a bleak reminder of a bitter and harsh
period in our history.
Boards of Guardians became important in Somerset, where there were few Municipal Corporations, as the first locally elected bodies empowered to employ professional workers, clerks, treasurers, medical officers and relieving officers. In this they mark the beginning of the modern system of local government with elected councillors to discuss and decide on policy and the professional officers with their staffs who implement the decisions and play such an important part in the administration of everyday affairs within the county. The success of the Guardians in dealing with the special problem for which they had been created, and the fact that they possessed effective administrative officers, led to the extension of their duties under subsequent legislation to include the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths, as well as the arrangement of the periodic censuses; Vaccination; the Assessment and Valuation of property; School Attendance (for areas where no other competent authority, e.g. borough, existed); and Infant Life Protection. Under the Public Health Act of 1875, the Guardians of a union usually formed the rural sanitary authority for that part of their area not included in a borough. They were responsible for, amongst other things, sewerage, scavenging, water supplies, control of nuisances, treatment of infectious diseases, and the provision of allotments. A Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry into the government of towns led to the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act in 1835, which established a new democratic form of town councils. Old established towns, known as muncipal boroughs, had been granted special privileges by Royal Charters, including the right to selfgovernment through a town council. Most of these councils were not popularly elected. They were called 'close corporations' because when a vacancy occurred among the councillors, the council itself chose his successor. This system caused much ill-feeling and bad government, for councillors were more often concerned with their own personal advantage rather than the welfare of the townspeople. By the Act of 1835, all municipal boroughs were to be governed by councils elected for three years by the ratepayers. The council then elected aldermen, or senior councillors, in number equal to one third of the council, for a period of six years. Every year the council elected the Mayor, or chief burgess, who acted as chairman at the council meetings. The Act applied only to chartered towns, but other towns were encouraged to adopt the new system. In Somerset, only a few towns qualified; Bath, Bridgwater, Chard, Glastonbury and Wells. Taunton had lost its position as a chartered town in 1792, but was granted a new charter in 1877. Yeovil received its charter in 1854 and Weston-super-Mare in 1937. At present (1973) there are seven municipal boroughs in Somerset, with Bath in a special position as a County Borough. The pattern of locally elected Boards, under central government control, to deal with local problems, laid the foundations for the further development of democratic forms of local government. The problem of public health came into prominence during the 1830s and 1840s, especially in towns, where there was rarely a public supply of pure water and only the most primitive sanitation without any planned means of sewage disposal. Epidemics of cholera led to the passing of the Public Health Act of 1848 which encouraged but did not enforce the setting up of local Boards of Health to tackle the problem. In 1872 and 1875, these Boards were made compulsory under a new name of Sanitary Authority. By this time most towns in the county had constructed underground sewers and had provided a supply of piped water. The cost of all this was borne by the ratepayers who sometimes found that they were in different areas for the services provided by various Boards. Among the latter after the Elementary Education Act of 1870 were the School Boards who were in charge of the provision of schools in areas where none existed. They also took over existing inefficient or under-supported schools, enlarged and replaced them if necessary, and became responsible for their maintenance. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||