How far did the role of the gov grow?

• 1780 - gov involvement in social policy was minimul
• Taxes were raised mainly to finance foreign wars and to keep the borders of the country secure.
• Belief that social policy, was the business of parishes - view was supported by the ideology of laissez-faire.
• However, the election of a Whig government in 1830 ended 23 years of tory government, and raised the hope of many that reforms in different areas of government would be possible.
• Representation of the People Act - 1832:

  Made some important adjustments to the franchise and to the distribution to seats = greater representation from the growing industrial towns of the Midlands and the North. It was expected that some attention would be paid, after 1832, to the much needed PH reforms in the areas they represented. M/C representation with a desire to keep rates low meant that sanitary reform was low on MP's agendas, and there was still the feeling that PH reforms were the business of local authorities, not parliament.
• Municipal Corporations Act 1832:

  Ended 'closed' corporations, the same councillors reappointed themselves. Borough councils were to be elected by male ratepayers for a 3 year term of office. Councillors elected a mayor and chose aldermen. Councils could assume control of paving, sewerage, street cleaning and drainage in their areas. They still needed a private Act of Parliament to enable them to do so and this was not a cheap undertaking.
• Central gov showed little interest in PH. If town councils wanted to tackle the problem, then that was their affair. The fact that councils were elected by ratepayers raised the possibility that the more progressive councils would want to focus on PH reforms.
• The 1844 Report of the Royal Commission into the Sanitary Condition of Large Towns and Populous Districts marked a mid-century appraisal of the sanitary condition of Britain. - It was immediately followed by some minor legislation designed to hold the situation until a main PH Act could be prepared.
• 1846 - Nuisance Removal Act:

  Designed to enable justices in petty session courts to prosecute those responsible for 'nuisances'. Nuisances were generally defined as being unwholesome houses, accumulations of filth, foul drains and cesspools.
• 1846 - Baths and Washhouses Act:

  enabled local authorities to provide baths and washhouses out of public money.
• 1847 - Towns Improvement Clauses Act:

  Defined the rights of towns to lay water supplies and drainage schemes and to control nuisances. It also legalised the discharge of sewage into rivers and the sea, and allowed its sale for agricultural purposes.
• These acts shared a common characteristic: they only applied if the authorities wanted them too.
• Health of towns bills were introduced in 1845 and 1847 but were withdrawn. An attempt to introduce a PH bill in 1847 was defeated by MPs who became known as the 'dirty party'. However, the onset of the 1848 cholera epidemic provided the necessary impetus for a further PH bill to be successful.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  A General Board of Health was set up, which reported to parliament, It was based in London. 3 original members were Lord Morpeth, Lord Shaftebury and Edwin Chadwick.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  Local authorities were empowered to set up local board of health. These could be set up where:

  • 10% of the ratepayers asked for one
  • death rate was greater than 23 per 1,000.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  • local boards of health were permitted to appoint a medical officer of health and pay his wages out of the rates
  • local boards of health were to manage sewers, drains, wells and slaughterhouses, refuse and sewerage systems, burial grounds and public baths, recreation areas and public parks.
  • local boards of health could finance projects by levying local rates and buying land.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  The act was permissive: it did not apply everywhere to all local authorities throughout the country.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  Its strengths were that, because it applied where local people wanted it, there was little or no opposition to it and so implementation would be relatively easy. It had to apply where conditions were very poor, people were desperate for any remedy and wouldn't put up any serious opposition, and piecemeal implementation meant that those who were suspicious or wary could see for themselves how the act worked to improve PH and would push for the introduction of it in their own towns and cities.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  Weaknesses: lack of universality. It did not apply to London - which had its own act in 1848 to establish the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers - or the city of London with its own City Sewers Act. Nor did it apply to Scotland; the act was only enforced where the death rate in a district was more than 23 per 1,000 living, and then only could the General Board of Health force a local authority to set up a local board of health.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  Weaknesses: although local boards of health set up compulsorily were to have considerable powers of basic public health requirements - drainage, building regulation, nuisance removal and water supply - they were not required to take on wider PH considerations that included things like parks and baths.
• The Public Health Act 1848:

  The 1848 Public Health Act demonstrates the government's preparation to do something. Prepared to provide a solution for towns and cities trying to fight their way through the morass of private and local legislation to achieve some sort of standard of PH. Was prepared to intervene on behalf of the most vulnerable members of society to nudge their local authorities in the direction of providing for their care. It generated pressure from the public for further reform and confidence in the legislators that they could deliver it.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Opposition to public health reforms was not so much opposition to the reforms themselves as to a variety of issues that were highlighted in the pressures to reform. Issues varied in importance from place to place and local authorities changed over time. Some areas embraced reform, others dragged their feet and some refused to have anything to do with it.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Improvement schemes of any kind cost money. Property owners spent money to have clean water piped to large cisterns in their house, and for sewers or cesspits to hold waste from their inside lavatories. They were loath to pay out again, via local taxes, to have similar facilities provided for their neighbours when there would be no benefit to themselves.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Many people felt that government was encroaching on their individual liberties by requiring them to remove dung heaps from their properties or whitewash a slaughterhouse.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Vested interests - directors of local water companies - were usually represented in local government and often on local boards of health. They were unlikely to vote for measures that would reduce their company profits.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Civil engineering problems posed by sewerage and water supply schemes were barely understood by lay people on local boards of health; this caused delay and the implementation of inappropriate systems.
• Why was their continued opposition to PH provision in the 1850s and 1860s?

  Chadwick irritated, annoyed and angered many because of his bullying tactics.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  These two acts brought along the following changes:

  • the General Board of Health was abolished
  • the powers of the General Board of Health was given to a new Local Government Act office
  • a medical department of the Privy Council was set up
  • Local boards of health were given powers to take preventative action and appoint officials.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  The 10 years in between had shown a gradual acceptance by local authorities of the need for more powerful local public health bodies, but there was considerable hostility towards the General Board of Health and its commissioner Edwin Chadwick.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  Splitting the powers and functions of the old General Board of Health between the Local Government Act office and the Privy Council medical department was the solution.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  One of the main functions of the old General Board of Health had been to approve loans to local authorities for PH projects. This function was continued. The permission of the Local Government Act Office was needed for all loans that local authorities wanted to raise in order to carry out public works. It was a short step for the Privy Council medical department to carry out the relevant inspections where PH projects were involved.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  It was central government direct that for the first time became involved in the administration of PH.
• Local Government Act 1858 and the Public Health Act 1858:

  568 towns set up Boards of Health and began implementing PH reforms.
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  A key mover was John Simon. He was London's first medical officer of health in 1848 and medical officer to the General Board of Health in 1855. 1858, he became the first medical officer to the medical department of the Privy Council. Worked within the permissive framework set up by the 1848 Act, seeking to persuade local authorities to accept PH systems. In 1866, parliament passed a new Sanitary Act, as a result of his report in 1865.
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  Sanitary powers that had been granted to individual local boards of health under the 1848 Act were made available to all local boards.
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  Local authorities were made responsible for the removal of 'nuisances' to PH. If local authorities failed to act, central government could do the work of improvement and charge the local authorities.
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  The definition of 'nuisance' was extended to domestic properties, including overcrowding
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  Local authorities were given the power to improve or demolish slum housing
• The Sanitary Act 1866:

  Compulsion was a significant element of an Act of Parliament dealing with PH. The state could now compel them to act. The state was directing PH reform.
• What were the pressures for further change?

  1867 - Parliamentary Reform Act effectively gave the vote to working men in towns. Politicians had to pay attention to their problems, which included PH.