Discuss With Reference To Edwin Chadwick History Essay

Discuss With reservoir To Edwin Chadwick History EssayDependent upon which historic field of study peerless and hardly(a) has leaned indoors, the image of Edwin Chadwick has, in past historiography, been much(prenominal) or less polarized. deep down the context of the 1834 shortsighted Law A mendment proceeding, we be given an insight into the evil Edwin, the villain of curt-relief. His office staff in the creation of a deterrent arranging that centreed upon indoor(a) relief within the dreaded workhouse as its focus, do him unpopular present-day(a)ly, and historic in ally. However, on the flipside of this coin, as one might expect, is an image of a man of morality. This Chadwick, opposed his earlier guise, has been heralded by historians as one the great figures and proponents of general wellness. His Sanitary Report (1842) was and is, hitchn as the pioneering piece of reformist literature that enkindled the flame of trueity health in England.2Here I apply sh make the two sides of Edwin Chadwick. These two seemingly separate entities have been analysed by historians.3 til now, it seems that until recently, Chadwick within the frequent health context has forfended the scrutiny that the earlier unforesightful truth associated Chadwick has suffered. This rat be attri onlyed to a great degree to the early historiographical delay (or rather a lack thitherof) of the new unretentive rightfulness. This image of the pitilessness and amorality of the Amendment Act and the negative appraisal of the deplorable rectitude post-1834 began with Beatrice and Sidney Webb. Their famous, and numerous, volumes on side of meat local government have largely been discredited by modern historians as or so ahistorical. It is sometimes far too easy to perspective upon a contemporaneous historical context modern attitudes and ideals. Early historical attitudes surrounding the new poor legal philosophy suffered from this contemporary grafting.In t he a similar(p) vein, the historiography of globe health in relation to Chadwick brush off be viewed as teleological. If non teleological, because it certainly suffered from a lack of questioning of Chadwicks semipublic health ideals, in particular those expounded in his Sanitary Report. The limitations of this historiography are being remedied by a current crop of historians, including Christopher Hamlin, Mary Poovey, and slightly earlier by Anthony Brundage.4The veneer of the Sanitary Report is being wiped a course to expose the complexness of Chadwicks intentions hidden within the grain. Historians such as Hamlin have emphasised the semi governmental nature of Chadwicks Report. This new appraisal of the Chadwick of public health has narrowed the interruption between the Chadwick of the poor law. at that dwelling is only one Chadwick. This strive exit hopefully disprove this duality of Chadwick, and emphasise the similarities between Chadwicks attitudes within a po or law context and those within the Sanitary Report. Thither are politically charged thread that link his work within the regal cathexis for the poor law, between 1832 and 1834, to that of his 1842 Sanitary Report. twain the poor law and sanitation were components of Chadwicks wider reformist vision non only for England, besides for extensive Britain.5Chadwicks national throw of fond brass and melioration through and through centralised governing bodies, self-supervision, surveillance and discipline was based upon the assemblage of a portion of evidence and in physical composition. Centralisation, discipline, and statistics are the key threads to lowstanding Chadwick the politician, if he was such at all. Integral to an understanding of Chadwicks political persuasion is the influence of Jeremy Bentham and his useful principles.6This is a thread that shall run through and alongside the other threads it is certainly a probatory cheek of the politics of Chadwick. Some h istorians apprise that Chadwick was a product of Benthamite principles.7 at that placefore, a study of Chadwick without the inclusion of Jeremy Bentham would be a considerably diminished understanding of Chadwicks politics. The themes of functionalism run throughout the work of Chadwick. His ideas on the musical composition of the English or even British state are based largely upon the teachings of Bentham.8The Poor Law electric charge within Chadwicks desire of administrative bodies was along truly similar lines to that of Benthams Indigence Relief Minister. Further much, the afterwards General Board of Health for which Chadwick can be attributed, was similar in many ways to the Minister of Health posited by Bentham. It is certainly substantiate that Benthams principles had a significant impact on Chadwicks ideas of central organization and administration.9Historians such as John Roach and Anthony Brundage have attributed this shaping of Chadwicks mind to Benthams constit utive(a) Code. This pointedness of Chadwicks life, when living with Bentham, and helping him draft the Constitutional Code, is posited as one of the to the highest degree significant and influential closes in moulding his political, affectionate and morphological outlook. provided, as Helen Benyon has conjureed, after Benthams death, his pupil can be seen to depart somewhat from his code.10This divergence can be seen throughout Chadwicks career. For example, Bentham considered a royal centering to be an instrument of monarchical tyranny.11Yet as is well documented, Chadwick was to a great extent involved in such commissions, including his part in the Royal Commission on the poor law, for which he played a significant fictitious character. He even headed the Royal Commission on factories, and played an encouraging post in the commission that resulted in the passing of the Public Health Act in 1848. This divergence is non necessarily negative. In many respects, a royal com mission was a fashion equal to(p) tool of the Victorian period which engendered reform. Therefore, we can see Chadwick as merely using the political avenues that existed to make known his own reformist ideals. In addition, much of what Chadwick spend a pennyd out of these commissions, in administrative and organizational terms was relatively utilitarian. This theme of centralisation and depart be detailed in the proceeding section.One sticking point can be seen in Chadwicks opposition to universal political enfranchisement, something which Bentham certainly advocated towards the viability of democracy. This modify from Benthamism is certainly significant for subsequent analysis of Chadwicks conception of accessible organisation within his Sanitary Report. This should not detract from the far-reaching effect that Benthams political theory had upon the ulterior work of Chadwick. He was not a complete product of Bentham, his own past and ideological makeup mixed and fused with the latent Benthamite principles, the just about significant of which can be seen in Chadwicks wholly national picture of reform and emolument towards intervention, and inspection through centralisation.Following this train of thought, we remove into a key area of Chadwicks ideology. Centralisation was a significant aspect of the Chadwick present of organisation. It has its origins in Benthamism of a considerably national and furnish system of institutional organisation.12An important factor in this is the Whig government from the 1832 Parliamentary rejuvenate Act throughout the 1830s. As Brundage has suggested this Whig government presided over the more or less exceptional periods of government growth in British history.13Reforms in areas such as the factories, the poor laws, education and police, all involved the growth of central government. There is a definite Benthamite flavour to this reformism. And this influence could be seen not only in the figure of Chadwick, but i n moderate positions of post. Yet Chadwick is, for the purposes of this essay the most significant mortal. His centralising vision is certainly along utilitarian lines. This was Bourne out of an abstract and conceptual definition of paternalism which could be grafted onto his model of centralised government. However, the Whig governments idea of paternalism was along the more traditional lines of maintenance of the self-assurance of local government. The Whigs were open to government growth, yet only to uphold and lace this traditional paternal hierarchy.14In this respect one can see Chadwicks visions of central organisation as perhaps being moulded by his contemporaneous reality. England was more an agglomeration of counties, parishes, and common law courts than a state.15For his centralised vision to be accepted, he would have to make concessions. The structure of organisation and administration for which he provided for the poor law is a run aground example of such a concess ion. He realized the central body of the Poor Law Commission, the inspectorial and supervisorial enforcer of uniform relief, whilst keeping the local organs. However, these local unions presided over much larger geographic districts than under the old poor law, amalgamating several parishes together. Along with this example under the poor law, the earlier Factory Act, or Althorps Act passed in 1833 is in all likelihood a more significant indicator of the central interference of Chadwick. It was the start piece of legislation in Britain based on a major inquiry by experts entailing inference by the central government, supervised by agents of central government.16This centralised and uniform state driven ideology can even be set within Chadwicks Sanitary Report. His vision of a national network of pipes, pumping fresh water into the homes and flushing out waste gives a very vivid image of state uniformity.17Furthermore, for the enactment of such a large scale task, he emphasises the need for a cent rebuke unionised system of expertise and authority. In 1848 the General Board of Health was invest up. One can range within Chadwicks work an overarching reformist vision. Within both the poor law (for which Chadwick has been negatively appraised) and the creation of public health (for which he is the patron saint) one can identify a continuity of his administrative vision of centralised institutions based upon authority, supervision and uniformity. In this respect, the fling between the Chadwick of the poor law and the Chadwick of public health converge to create Chadwick the reformist a man with a national vision of emendment and Benthamite tendencies.Here a brief example of the brilliance of Benthams influence upon Chadwicks ideology might shed some light on Chadwicks policies. Anthony Brundage suggests that Benthams Panopticon plan is a physical representation of the concept of the tutelary State which Chadwick championed during the 1830s and 1840s. It resembled the Panopticon in its thoroughness, tidiness, and besides its intrusiveness.18This design was intended for use in prisons or even workhouses, as an optimized system of surveillance. Yet here it brings to life, if only in image form, the splendor of uniformity, and central authority in Chadwicks vision of the state. An important fact was that from the reckon tower all cells could be viewed, yet from the cells the central tower was not visible. This is an interesting aspect to consider in the context of Chadwicks vision, oddly that of social improvement.Another significant thread of Chadwicks social vision is its disciplinary thrust. Both during his time within the poor law and public health domains there can be seen a subversive attempt by Chadwick to create an improved social body. The most troublesome of which was the labouring cast. To understand the political nature of Chadwicks work, one needs to place it in its historical context.The most significant context is that of the Chartist movement. Emerging in the early 1830s and then re-emerging in the late 1840s, they were perceived as a very real threat to the Whig government of the time. The Chartist movement emerged out of the London working Mens Association set up in 1836 by William Lovett. He later produced the Peoples Charter with Frances Place. They called for universal male suffrage. For the Whig government there was a very real fear that revolution could occur at any moment.19France was not so far away, and their recent history still lived fresh in the memory. There were several bouts of protests and marches by the Chartists, specially within urban areas. Some of which ended in violence, and the deaths of several Chartists. The Chartists movement was a rally point of sorts for the poor and disenfranchised labour commonwealth. Within this context one can understand the political nature of Chadwicks Sanitary Report in particular through his moulding of public health which incorporate d a social preponderance. In addition to this context is that of the earlier disappointment at the inadequacies of the 1832 Parliamentary Reform propounded by Charles Greys Whig government. Along with this was the creation of the new poor law in 1834 the poor harvests during 1836 and 1837.20This context set the scene in which Chadwicks social and disciplinary ideas can be situated.Mary Poovey identifies Chadwicks attempt, through well reform, to organise and control the labouring kinfolkes.21I use control here in the loosest sense of the word. Perhaps, as used earlier, discipline may be a more apt term. Chadwick, within the Sanitary Report, narrows public health to sanitation. Here one can identify Chadwicks divergence from the alternative attitudes towards public health such as existed in France, or even those attitudes of his British contemporaries, mainly within the medical checkup sphere. He follows an environmental cause of illness through filth theory. This however, does n ot only constitute the physical illness, but Chadwick also incorporates psychological and social complaint as being caused by this accumulation of filth.22His main focus is upon the labouring or working screen, especially those within slums and residences of particular depravity. In a wholesome context these areas were identified by Chadwick as areas with the highest mortality rates. The other focal point is that of the grandeur of domestic helpity, and the cleanliness of the labourers domestic sphere not only towards the prevention of sickness but also towards his social improvement.23Using rather selective evidence, (an have a go at it that will be further elaborated upon in a later section), Chadwick identifies place and class as the most significant determinants in the causation of disease. In this way he proved that the most important factor in the spread of disease was not only material filth, but where you lived.24Chadwick discounted altogether the workplace.With the aforementioned political (Chartist) context in mind, one can identify the disciplinary thrust to Chadwicks Sanitary Report. The politicisation of the labouring classes was to both Chadwick and the Whig government a significant concern. Within the Sanitary Report Chadwick discourages those same labouring men from homo-social activity within any sphere, but particularly that of the public house. Chadwick relate the frequenting of such places of vice as a product of the depraved arrest of the domestic sphere which was its self a consequence of filth and disease.25As aforementioned, many middle-class commentators were concerned with the working classes use of public space, especially that of public houses. These were not only associated with drinking and disorderly behaviour, but more significantly as places for radical labour organisation especially that of parcel out unionism.26In emphasising the grandeur of the domestic sphere Chadwick links the labouring mans individual identit y to his family over any homo-social association.The growing urbanized and capitalist formation of England should be borne in mind. The industrialization of England during this period brought with it the emergence of the capitalism and the importance of the free market. In such a context the middling-classes also emerged and gained a foothold within this new state.27Furthering this idea of discipline and social club it is clear through the Sanitary Report that Chadwicks ideal for which the labouring class should aspire to be was certainly that of the middling class the class who better(p) fitted into the formation of Britain as an industrialising and capitalist nation. The middling class were seemingly more civilised than the labouring class, and more importantly they enjoyed lower rates of mortality. However, unluckily for Chadwick, they were politically enfranchised.28This final bribe as has been mentioned was significant. And within Chadwicks own work it creates a certain par adox.29Throughout his Sanitary Report Chadwick emphasises the importance of the reputability of domesticity, and improvements of the labouring class through the investment in institutions of savings, schooling, respectability and religion. Chadwick generalises the domestic values of the middle class to represent the whole of English society. Emphasising the importance of appropriated behaviour and their distinction from the frugality of the aristocrats and the licentious working-class, Chadwick establishes the naturalness of middle class living habits and the superiority thereof in both health and longevity.30Yet whilst placing this carrot of improvement in front of the labouring man, Chadwicks emphasis upon improvement is kept within the domestic sphere, thus allowing for sanitary and social improvement. This domestic emphasis limits the working man, actively reduceing and denying the political collusion that the middling classes enjoyed. In this way Chadwick allowed the labourer only part of the carrot of improvement.31Chadwick, therefore, denies members of the labouring population the opportunity of establishing the kinds of relationships with each other that facilitated the consolidation of the middle class as a political entity.32In this respect one sees the attempt by Chadwick to discipline the labouring class through guidance and their own self-discipline. What is more significant here is how Chadwick is able, in the climate of a reluctant-to-reform government, to get sanitary reform passed. This can be attributed to a number of factors most importantly, Chadwick was able in his report to incorporate the social into sanitation. Chadwick attributed filth theory not only to the causation of physical disease, but also to the causation of alcoholism and more significantly the labouring mans potentially revolutionary behaviour.33Chadwick addressed the political issue of the day whilst explicitly avoiding overtly political rhetoric. He made political unrest a sanitary issue. By masking those social issues with the sweeter taste of health and sanitation, Chadwick makes his vision easier to swallow for a reluctant government. This as Hamlin rightly points out is the true nature of Chadwicks Report. It was essentially a political piece of work, with social reorganization hidden behind the guise of disease prevention and public medicine.34This material and domestic focus allowed for Chadwick to avoid the issue of poverty as a determinant of disease. Chadwick discounted issues such as comme il faut food, clothing and sufficient wages as consequential to health. Although seemingly avoiding the issue of the poor law, Chadwick is inadvertently addressing the problem. His vision of sanitary improvement was intended to improve the very class for whom poor relief was a viable option. If through sanitation their physical, and psychological state could be improved then they would be less depraved, less inclined to drink and perhaps less possible to need to be relieved.Statistical information was not only a phenomenon of the Victorian period it was also a powerful reformist tool, pioneered by the social reformist James Phillips Kay.35Information and evidence are significant factors in the understanding of Chadwicks work both within the Royal Commission for the poor law and within his Sanitary Report. Chadwick was quick to utilise the power of information to further his reformist plan. This is bare throughout his work on the Royal Commission of the poor law, and of the Factories, and certainly within his Sanitary Report.36Influenced by his contemporary James Phillips Kay, Chadwick embarked upon the use of statistics and evidence for reformist purposes. This would seem a noble endeavour, classically associated with the reformist movement, in work such as the aforementioned Kay, and many others seeking to improve England. Chadwick was shrewder with his statistical evidence. Many historians suggest that he used only those stati stics which would further his preconceived notions and aims. This is certainly evident mostly starkly, as Christopher Hamlin among other historians have identified, within the Sanitary Report.37Chadwicks narrow of public health to that of sanitation is the prime example. Chadwick ignores completely the medical aspects of public health, refusing to include the medical profession into his vision. Furthermore, his emphasis upon the environmental cause of disease through filth completely ignored not only hearty evidence from physician such as Alison who exampled a complexity of issues to disease causation, but also his contemporary and friend James Phillips Kay. This narrow focus and selective evidence can be seen as a way of Chadwick avoiding certain issues for which he was reluctant to attribute to the health of the labouring class that being poverty and the new system of poor relief. Chadwicks focus upon the physical moved the focus away from claims by Poor Law medical officers tha t harsh Poor Law policies were the cause of illness and disease38Thus, for Chadwick to avoid confirming in writing that his already hated poor law was also a cause of disease he had to change politeness and use statistics to prove otherwise. If hardship produced illness, a PL founded upon disincentives to seek relief was counterproductive and morally indefensible.39Chadwick took the same attitude with the compilation of his evidence within the poor law commission. He used and selected the right evidence that would bolster his policy. There was opposition, yet Chadwick seemed, and did, amass voluminous amounts of evidence that supported his claim.40Chadwick throughout the period applied statistics to bolster his preconceived cause. He was so advantageful that he not only managed to enact his reforms, but also, made those reforms seem like the only viable reality.Chadwick was certainly an active reformist during this period, and even before.41With regards to whether Chadwick was a p olitician in disguise, is certainly nuanced and complex. He was not a political figure he was a reformist, and a civil servant of sorts.42Yet he certainly played the political game. He was active in much of the policy making that occurred during this period and had a significant role in the two most significant areas of reform the poor law and public health, for which he essentially established in England, if on somewhat narrower definitions than that of his French counterparts.43This in itself is an example of his attempts at creating a new social picture of England. His national vision extended from a centralised institutional authority to a mass social body. Everything Chadwick attempted was on a national scale. His vision of the improvement of Great Britain is evident in most of his works. And he was determined to have this vision become a reality. His selective use of evidence, the focus of his Sanitary Report, the Royal Commission on the poor law, certainly sways one in the di rection of politician in disguise. a lot of his work in contemporaneous context had subtle and subverted political agendas. The poor law was based on a deterrent system, which aimed at the simplification of expenditure. This is a more explicit involvement. Yet the Sanitary Reports is a prime example of a politician in disguise. The overarching focus upon the health of the labouring poor is punctuated by the inclusion of discipline and social organisation.Yet for all these aspects, Chadwick was certainly more a product of his Benthamite roots. A man severely influenced by Benthams Constitutional Code, but with his own individual drive and aspirations. In this way, improvement and reform were his true aims. He had a vision for the makeup if Britain and was determined to see that his ideas were realised, even if that meant making certain concessions to make it more appealing to government, and at times to cover his own back. One could suggest, especially within the Sanitary Report, that Chadwick chose sewers and water in a narrowing of public health because of their political innocuousness. He can be seen to actively avoid any explicit association with the politics of this area. Chadwick, unlike many of his Utilitarian contemporaries, was seemingly more inclined to diverge slightly from his Benthamite past if it meant the success of his policies.