ABSTRACT
The New Poor Law established a central poor law authority, at first known as the Poor Law Commission, later the Poor Law Board and finally the Local Government Board, whose task it was to outline relief policy and monitor implementation. Commending the principle of deterrence enshrined in the New Poor Law of 1834, Charles Mott, Assistant Commissioner for London, remarked that 'The Poor Law Amendment Act may indeed be called an Act of renovation for it causes lame to walk, the blind to see, and dumb to speak'. In relation to that group of paupers, poor law authorities faced a dilemma: by associating medical relief with pauperism, the Poor Law positively discouraged those in genuine need of treatment and, in so doing, may have added to their misery and indirectly encouraged spread of disease. The issues surrounding medical treatment and poor relief were especially problematic in London. The capital provided unique challenge to centralising efforts of the 19th-century Poor Law.
