<\/span><\/h3>\nCharles II in 1660s established two councils, one the Board of Trade and one the Board of Plantations.\u00a0 These represented the start of modern ministry.\u00a0 On motion by Mr.\u00a0 Burke in 1780, the Boards were abolished by parliament on the basis of lawfully enabling Members of Parliament to draw significant public salaries.<\/p>\n
After that, the affairs of trade were managed by an informal Committee of the Privy Council.\u00a0 A Committee of Council for Trade was established and separated from the Privy Council in 1786 and came to be known as the Board of Trade.\u00a0 It did not formally receive this name until 1862.<\/p>\n
The body had wide administrative powers which increased over time.\u00a0 It had a President, a Parliamentary Secretary and permanent staff.<\/p>\n
The Board of Trade’s business was to consider commercial treaties, colonial acts affecting trade, export and import duties and restrictions affecting the trade of the country.<\/p>\n
Free trade rose and enormous industrial expansion took place in the 19th<\/sup> century, particularly in railways, shipping and joint stock companies.\u00a0 Legislation threw greater duties of administration and supervision on the Board of Trade.<\/p>\n<\/span>Boards Departments<\/span><\/h3>\nThe Board at the start of the 20th<\/sup> century consisted of the following:<\/p>\n\n- Commercial and Statistical Department,<\/li>\n
- Railway Department,<\/li>\n
- Marine Department,<\/li>\n
- Harbour Department,<\/li>\n
- Financial Department.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Commercial and Statistical Department gave advice on commercial matters to other departments.\u00a0 The statistical side was created in 1832 preparing statistics on the UK colonies and foreign countries.\u00a0 It provided statistics on a range of matters including agriculture, railways, and immigration.<\/p>\n
The Railway Department was established in 1840 in order to inspect railways and conduct inquiries into accidents.\u00a0 It conducted reports on a range of matters affecting railway safety as well as tramways and Metropolitan Gas.<\/p>\n
The Marine Department had \u00a0duties in supervising merchant shipping.\u00a0 This included compulsory examination of masters and mates, engagement of seamen, health, discipline, issues affecting seamen and the condition and equipment of ships.<\/p>\n
The Harbour Department looked after lighthouses, pilotage and harbours.\u00a0 It dealt with Crown fisheries.\u00a0 It also dealt with weights and measures in trade and science providing the standards for the Mint and Assay Office.\u00a0 It dealt with \u00a0standards for gas and test apparatus relating to petroleum.<\/p>\n
The Financial Department dealt with accounts of the Department of Trade and related bodies.\u00a0 It examined the accounts of life assurance companies.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Board of Agriculture<\/span><\/h3>\nThe Board of Agriculture was created in 1889 and took over functions exercised by various Commissioners.\u00a0 It took over functions from the English Land Commission in the area of tithe, copyhold, enclosures and drainage.\u00a0 It took over functions of the Privy Council in the areas of animal and crop disease.\u00a0 It took over the Ordnance Survey from the Commissioners of Work.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Local Government Board<\/span><\/h3>\nThe Local Government Board was established in 1871 as a central authority for organising the functions of local government entities such as the Poor Law Board, whose principal functions were the administration of public health and poor law.\u00a0 It had a range of functions in relation to vaccination, prevention of disease, public health, baths, washhouses or artisans\u2019 dwellings, local government and local taxation.<\/p>\n
The Board had significant powers to make delegated legislation and regulations on a wide range of issues affecting public health.\u00a0 It could make bylaws in a wide range of areas from animal to public health.\u00a0 This included slaughterhouses, markets, hackney carriages, public bathing, canal boats and food safety. The Board sought to ensure that sanitary authorities did not diverge too much in their use of bylaw power.\u00a0 It had power to advise authorities and assist them in an emergency.<\/p>\n
The Board had power to hold inquiries and charge expenses on rates.\u00a0 It reported on private bills, brought before parliament in respect of local matters.\u00a0 It analysed and acted on the basis of numerous returns required to be made under statute.<\/p>\n
The degree of control varied on the nature of the legislation concerned.\u00a0 In some areas, particularly those funded entirely from local rates, its law was supervisory.\u00a0 In other areas including in particular those financed by central government, its powers were more thoroughgoing.<\/p>\n
The Board regulated the financial aspects of local bodies.\u00a0 Generally, sanitary authorities could not borrow without the approval of the Board.\u00a0 In this way, it had a significant influence on roads, paving, widening, public baths, gas works, hospitals, open spaces, slaughterhouses and cemeteries.\u00a0 It verified the alleged local need and scrutinised estimates.<\/p>\n
It audited the accounts of most authorities under the District Auditors Act 1879. The District auditors were appointed to every Board of Guardians, Council and Board under its authority.\u00a0 In this way, it sought to reduce a lot of anomalies and corruption in local government expenditure.\u00a0 Mechanisms existed whereby it could disallow expenditure and surcharge officeholders.<\/p>\n
Even by the late 19th<\/sup> century, the development of governmental through departments had made it more difficult for the Parliament to exercise effective scrutiny.<\/p>\n<\/span>Police<\/span><\/h3>\nPolice in the United Kingdom in the beginning of the 19th century has very little equivalence to the modern police force existed.\u00a0 Until 1829, there were no paid police force.\u00a0 It was only in 1856, that general legislation provided in England for an organised body of police force to maintain order and prosecute offences throughout the country.<\/p>\n
Formerly every township was to have its own constable with every man in the township was eligible to serve.\u00a0 He might be elected by neighbours or appointed by the judges.\u00a0 His principal duty was to arrest offenders.\u00a0 Local acts provided for the appointment of watchmen.<\/p>\n
An 1831 Act provided a mechanism to compel persons to serve as special constable in cases of special need.\u00a0 They were fined for failure to serve.<\/p>\n
In London there was a horse patrol of 54 men in the suburbs and a foot patrol of 100 men in the metropolis.\u00a0 Parish constables were in place by day and at night to watch.\u00a0 The watchman was appointed by the parish and had no remit outside his parish.\u00a0 Watchmen were situated in boxes and were required to move outside their box twice in every hour for a beat which \u00a0might last no more than 10 minutes.<\/p>\n
Parishes regularly kept constables and borough heads.\u00a0 The offices were prone to corruption. Offences could be compounded if offenders could pay and the expenses of prosecution were significant.\u00a0 Borough heads had opportunities for significant corruption.<\/p>\n
Various statutes dating back to the 17th century provided rewards for the apprehension of burglars, highwaymen, sheep stealers and convicts at large.<\/p>\n
An Act of the late 17th<\/sup> century provided for the privileges for persons who apprehended a felony.\u00a0 This exempted the holder from serving in certain offices in the parish where the apprehension had taken place.\u00a0 The ticket was transferable and commanded significant market value.<\/p>\nIn some cases, persons were convicted incorrectly or induced to commit offences for the purpose of obtaining the reward on conviction.\u00a0 The reward was given in the name of blood money. A further effect was that police took greatest interest in offences with rewards so there was d little incentive in relation to more minor crimes.\u00a0 There was an incentive to allow petty criminals to develop into serious crime in order to collect the reward when the more serious crime was committed.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Formation of Police Forces<\/span><\/h3>\nIn 1829, the new Metropolitan Police Force was created.\u00a0 Initiated by Sir Robert Peel, the names Bobby and Peeler endure.\u00a0 The force was under the authority of a Secretary of State. \u00a0The Metropolitan Police in London was and became an independent police force.<\/p>\n
In 1839, a police force on a military model was created but under the control of the corporation.\u00a0 This meant that two police forces under different controls operated in overlapping and contiguous areas.<\/p>\n
Political movement required that newly created boroughs should have their own constables paid by Town Council.\u00a0 In 1856, it was enacted that all counties which had not yet have a paid county constabulary should do so immediately.\u00a0 Yearly inspection was provided for by government inspectors.\u00a0 Regulations were provided in terms of number of men, discipline etc.\u00a0 The Home Secretary must certify the efficiency of the force.\u00a0 Treasury paid half the cost of maintenance, outside of London.<\/p>\n
By the late 19th<\/sup> century, a range of administrative type of functions devolved on to the police.\u00a0 This included weights and measures, explosives, common lodging house, contagious disease.<\/p>\n<\/span>Poor Law in England<\/span><\/h3>\nA statute of 1601 directed that officers should be appointed for each parish in England to be called overseers of the poor.\u00a0 Their duty was to raise a common fund for the necessary relief of the poor and to set to work all paupers in the parish and their children.<\/p>\n
At the start of the 19th<\/sup> century, each parish collected separately and administered its own poor law fund.\u00a0 Each parish had to maintain its own poor.\u00a0 There was no equivalent legislation in Ireland at that time.\u00a0 The Act of Union nor did any system of poor law commence until 1838.<\/p>\nOverseers could obtain an order from the justices to \u00a0move paupers back to the parish where they belonged to be maintained at the expense of that parish.\u00a0 He was bound to be maintained by the parish where he was last legally settled.\u00a0 A great deal of law developed around the concept of settlement and was later supplemented by statute.<\/p>\n
The justices made orders for removal of paupers from one parish to another.\u00a0 Much of the litigation was between parishes.\u00a0 Allegations of bias arose as decisions were made by justices of the peace.\u00a0 In many cases, appeals to the quarter session followed by a \u00a0further appeal to the King’s Bench.\u00a0 This was lucrative for lawyers and the cost of disputes greatly exceeded in many cases the cost of maintaining the persons concerned.<\/p>\n
As early as 1662, certain parishes commenced uniting for poor law purposes under Acts of Parliament.\u00a0 They maintained a joint workhouse.\u00a0 Under 1782 legislation, parishes were authorised to combine for the purpose of the providing indoor relief. The legislation was permissive only.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Poor Law Reform<\/span><\/h3>\nOne of the first pieces of work undertaken by the first Parliament elected after the Reform Act of 1832 was the remodelling of the administration of poor law.\u00a0 The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 provided for the appointment of a central body of commissioners with extensive powers\u00a0 It grouped parishes into unions.\u00a0 The entire of England was divided into poor law unions.<\/p>\n
Legislation created Boards of Guardians of each union to whom the duty of relieving the poor was transferred.<\/p>\n
Each poor law union had its own workhouses and the parish poorhouses ceased to exist.\u00a0 Settlement cases only arose as between different unions.<\/p>\n
1846 legislation provided for the status of removability.\u00a0 If a man had resided in the parish for five years, he could not be removed to another parish even though he may be settled elsewhere.\u00a0 It he had his industrial <\/strong>residence in the first parish he was irremovable from that parish.<\/p>\nHe might return to his own parish in which event he could not be returned to the industrial residence parish.\u00a0 However as long as he chose to reside in the latter, the latter had to maintain him and educate his children. The period was reduced to three years in 1861 and later to one year in 1865.\u00a0 This minimised the number of removal cases.<\/p>\n
The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act 1876 provided that a pauper who resided for three years in any parish in such circumstances so that during those years he would have been irremovable from the parish, acquired a settlement in that parish.\u00a0 The reversion of settlement from ancestors was removed except for children under 16.<\/p>\n
A man or an unmarried woman who had not acquired a settlement for himself, was settled where he was born.\u00a0 A married woman took her husband’s settlement.\u00a0 A child under 16 took the settlement of his father or widowed mother till he acquired his own settlement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Guardians were empowered to exercise discretion in respect of whether to employ outdoor or indoor relief.\u00a0 A person who was really destitute was entitled to be received into the workhouse of wherever union he happens to be in and to be relived there until it is proved he was legally settled elsewhere.<\/p>\n
Guardians were no longer compelled to separate husband and wife if they entered into the poorhouse.\u00a0 They might be allowed to remain together if over 60 or if infirm.<\/p>\n
Outdoor relief was not readily granted.\u00a0 It was more commonly granted in kind than in money.\u00a0 Outdoor relief was granted more readily in rural areas with almost three quarters of the expenditure in \u00a0rural areas being so expended while the opposite percentage applied in the metropolis.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Government The 19th century saw an increase in the powers of the central government which was generally exercised through departments of government.\u00a0 However, the early 19th century was marked by traditional philosophy of laissez-faire, which held that most social work and regulation was best left to the free market. Central government supervised \u00a0local authorities […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28822,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181\/revisions\/28822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}