Chapter 1. The Central Authority.

 5. The Report of 1834 led to immediate and decisive action on the part of Parliament. It is noteworthy that in the Act which was passed in the same year ¹ attention was concentrated mainly upon the improvement of administration; but Parliament practically endorsed the recommendations and principles laid down in the Report, by authorising the appointment of a Central Authority with powers of control and uper-vision so strong as to enable it to carry out those recommendations throughout the country. This Central Authority was to consist of three fit persons to be Commissioners with the style of Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales. ² The Act was passed on the 14th August, and on the 23rd August Commissioners were appointed as a responsible authority for carrying its recommendations into effect. They were empowered to sit as a Board; ³ they were to have a seal; ⁴ they were to be incapable of sitting as members of the House of Commons; ⁵ and they were to hold office for a limited period of time. ⁶ They were authorised to make general rules for the administration of relief, but their powers of control were limited, on the one hand by the existing laws, on the other hand by the express provision that they should not be enabled to interfere in any individual case for the purpose of ordering relief. ⁷ They were also empowered to appoint Assistant-Commissioners, ⁸ Secretaries and other officers. ⁹ To the Assistant-Commissioners they might delegate any of their powers except that of making general rules. ¹⁰ They were to make an Annual Report to be laid before Parliament. ¹¹ It is from these Annual Reports that the history of their work is to be gathered, and as the expenditure upon the Commissioners and their staff was defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, ¹² the Annual Reports served to inform the House officially of the policy which they were adopting. The fact that the Commissioners were not represented in Parliament was so far advantageous in that they were almost entirely removed from the sphere of party politics; on the other hand, it was difficult both for the Commissioners to defend their actions and for Parliament to keep in touch with them. Recourse was had to the expedient of Committees of Inquiry, and in 1837 and 1838 Committees of the House of Commons, and in 1838 also a Committee of the House of Lords, reported upon the manner in which the Board was carrying out the Act.

The Poor Law Commissioners 1834–1847.