# Talk:English Poor Laws

The section "The act of 1601" makes use of both the word "poorhouse" and the word "workhouse". The text implies they are not the same thing, but does not give a good sense of how they would differ. Could someone clarify this?

In England, "poorhouse" was often used fairly synonymously with "workhouse" to refer to pre-1834 parish workhouses, although perhaps more so for establishments where little or no work was required of the inmates. In Scotland, and to some extent the north of England, "poorhouse" was the usual name for a workhouse. (Poorhouses established under the 1845 Scottish Poor Law Act never took in the the able-bodied.)
In other countries, e.g. the USA, there was a much clearer distinction between the poorhouse (for the destitute, old and sick) and the workhouse (a place where hard labour was required of able-bodied paupers, including petty criminals serving a short sentence there). Peter Higginbotham
I've tried to respond to this by adding more on the development of the Elizabethan laws.  Able-bodied paupers would be "set on work" but did not receive accommodation unless they were effectively imprisoned in a house of correction.  The first "workhouse" was not established until 1697, through a private Act of Parliament.  -  Paul Spicker
"Workhouses" were certainly around before 1697, e.g. see [www.workhouses.org.uk/Abingdon/ ] - Peter Higginbotham
I stand corrected - Peter Higginbotham's evidence on Abingdon is clear. I had believed that the Bristol workhouse was the first; it was not. I have amended the main article to reflect this, but perhaps Peter has more to say? - PS.

There's a request for a page on the "New Poor Law of 1834" on the requests page. Should that be redirected to this page or should there be a separate page covering the Poor Law Amendment Act in more detail? - Cherry blossom tree 13:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to add on the poorhouses that existed into the 1940's? matturn 11:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A short article on Poor Law Unions was set up without links to this one. I have moved the few additional facts and links (which are good ones) into this, as it makes more sense to describe Unions in the context of the Poor Law overall, and redirect on the term. Ditto (Guardians). 217.206.130.66 17:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Might it be an idea to create a separate Workhouses page detailing condition in UK workhouses and in similar systems else where in the world instead of having Workhouses link to this article?

I agree, so long as I don't have to do it. Also, please sign posts by using "~~~~" Cutler 00:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to second this idea.  The Workhouse and they're associated institutions played a major part in the UK welfare system prior to 1945 and this article doesn't do it justice.  S.Skinner 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Support I agree that this article does not do justice to the Workhouses or the local Unions. Scope needs to be made to indicate where the Workhouses were in the UK, the parishes they covered and their government. It could also cover the 19th century literature illustrating the different uses, fears etc. such as Charles Dickens and Henry Mayhew. DonBarton 14:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There definitely should be a separate workhouse page. There is a really good website [1] on this subject--Moonlight Mile 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support It is definitely a good Idea to have a separat page. If anyone is good at german, de-wikipedia has a page on 'Arbeitshäusen' a lot of which is about english workhouses! I could help with translation. Englishnerd 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created a separate entry but it needs expanding (a lot!).--Moonlight Mile 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should probably explain the term "outdoor relief" or link the term to an article that explains it. --Jim Henry | [[User talk:Jim Henry|Talk]] 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've linked outdoor relief, which is a redirect to social security. I'm not sure how well that article covers the grounds, to be honest. See that talk page for relevant thoughts. --Cherry blossom tree 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section explaining the difference between outdoor and indoor relief - please edit if you want joseph_2166 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff all round there. The article Outdoor relief still redirects to social security (indoor relief doesn't exist.) Maybe both of them should be redirected to Differences between indoor and outdoor relief (or something with a less clumsy title) which would contain that section? I imagine it is relevant in other contexts too, so having it in its own article seems a good idea. Thoughts?--Cherry blossom tree 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Amendment of 20th December:  Someone had questioned the statements that the Poor Law had responsibility for public health, and that it was a foundation for local government.  Both are correct.  Where there were existing local authorities, such as the boroughs, they were able to take responsibility for issues like sewers and public nuisances.   In much of the country there were no such authorities and the responsibilities were given formally to the Guardians.  The formation of Local Government Board, and subsequently of the system of local councils,  led to the gradual transfer of the main responsibilities from the Guardians to local government.
The iron law of wages is falsely attributed to David Ricardo - it is, in fact, the product of a radical critique of capitalism.  This should be fixed - it can be squared with the wiki article on Ricardo

I have inserted information on the Poor Laws in Ireland.  Can someone do the same for Scotland?  This article should be about the entire UK, not just England and Wales.

I know very little about either the Scottish Poor Laws or the Irish Poor Laws but they are sufficently different to the system in England and Wales to warrent their own articles. Francium12 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Within the section "The Act of 1601" reads the following:
"The Poor Law Act 2005 formalised earlier practices."
I'm no historian, but surely this cannot be correct.  Could someone with a more intimate knowledge of the Poor Law correct the date in this statement?

How about splitting it between the 1601 Law and the 1830s Amendment Act?

The removal of the 1601 and 1834 Acts has damaged this article beyond repair.  The 1834 article requires the background from 1780 on to make sense, the introduction to this section beoongs with the 1601 Act, and the material on the end of the Poor Law belongs after the 1834 section.  This must be reverted.  But the damage done to the article by inappropriate editing is now so extensive that it would require acres of work.  Is there a short way of doing it?

Quite right, this article is very messy. Although the two Poor Laws do need some historical background to make sense, we don't keep messy articles merged to to so. One could argue the Cold War ghas its background in WW2, but they aren't on the same page. The 1601 and 1834 Poor Laws should be on different pages, and the main 'Poor Law' replaced with a summary of the two.
I suggest we have the following pages:

Poor Law - A summary and disambiguation.
Poor Law - 1601-1834 - Covers the introduction of the Poor Law and its history to 1834
Poor Law - 1834-1948
I think that would be cleaner and less messy. Paj.meister 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the brief summary in this section is wrong but I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it.  Perhaps someone else can?
You are correct.  That is because the article has been hopelessly corrupted  and someone has stuffed the relevant information into the article on 1601.

Is it even viable to rescue this article through a reversion? Yue.san 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Any article which tries to cover some 500 years of history is going to be messy. Split! 172.141.230.234 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created the category Poor Law to group together a few articles in one place. 172.143.110.31 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Within 'History' and under 'Medieval Poor Laws', there is the statement that; 'Wages rose for labourers, and this forced up inflation across the economy, as goods became more expensive to produce.'
Yet the value of money can not be moving in two directions (both up and down) at the same time, except in two separate economies <ref/ Ricado, Political Economy>. In this case the inflation is likely to have been caused, not by the associated rise in wages, but by the inability to commercially fill the local operational demand for labour, the subsequent disruption to production this caused, and scarcity of produce. A successful operation would then be at a premium increasing its' capital, and only increasing wages in order to maintain their business in an already inflating market, hopefully to exploit the political situation. Hence, requiring the passing of the 'Statute of Labourers' in 1351 as a remedy.Benhr14 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Benhr14 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alcock complained, in 1752, that "these marks of distinction have had but little effect, and for that Reasons, I suppose, have been almost everywhere neglected."
I think this needs to be cited, so I have added a tag to the Act of 1601 section.  A link to the appropriate (author's) article, or at least some clarification of the quote's origin would be helpful.
--Yue.san 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Before the English Reformation it was considered a Christian duty to care for the sick and needy"
This is really a very anti-Protestant statement - and it's followed by another: "the break with Rome some of this attitude was lost"
It gives a reference which leads to a page by "Marjie Bloy" of the National University of Singapore. The reference must be to this statement: "After the Reformation and the establishment of the Church of England, many of the old values and moral expectations disappeared so it became necessary to regulate the relief of poverty by law" (http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html). Incidentally, Christians in Singapore are almost exclusively Catholic.
So, OK, there's a reference. But Marjie gives no reference herself for this statement, which is being used in this paragraph to give a very negative impression of Protestantism.
It could easily be seen that with the advent of Protestantism in England, Poor Laws were enacted out of a new found sense of social duty.
This view that Marjie gives, and is used here, is far from the conventional one, and I'm removing it.
If anyone feels differently, please add a good reliable reference.
The full sentence being removed: "Before the English Reformation it was considered a Christian duty to care for the sick and needy. With the break with Rome some of this attitude was lost which meant that there needed to be increasing legislation in order that 'deserving poor' should be cared for."
Deipnosopher 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I might have quoted these few lines (coinicidently i'm C of E). How about saying that the Protestent suppression of the monastries which were Catholic and dispensed poor relief meant that greater intervention from the state was needed once they were gone? that ok?(http://www.thepotteries.org/dates/poor.htm) 172.159.247.114 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument that traditional forms of charity went with the break with Rome is the conventional as argued here [2]   Francium12 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for good article status. It has been improved significantly from a year or so ago when it appeared to be trying to cover 500+ years of history in a single page. The splitting was a little messy but we got there in the end Francium12 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:English Poor Laws/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Initial comments
The article is looking good at the moment, but I can see a few signs that a small selection of issues need to be resolved before the article can be passed. Most obviously at the moment: referencing. The availability of sources is obviously great, so references covering statements like "This change was in part due to changing attitudes on the nature and causes of poverty - there was for the first time an attitude that society had a responsibility to protect its more vulnerable members." are really a must for me.
Another point, which I think ought to be considered (not necessarily a blocker though) is the sectioning of the article. Are we following a chronological structure or what? It's not overly obvious at first from the table of contents, which ideally it should be. "Opposition" - to the old law, new law, laws in general? 
Anyhow, good work so far, and I'm looking forward to passing the article soon. I can draw up a more thorough review, lend a hand tweaking the smaller things, and so forth, but at the moment you're obviously better placed than me, so I'll leave it a few days. :)  - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 10:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added references for everything with a  tag and where I haven't been able to find a reference I have changed the statment to something (more informative) that can be referenced. I've Removed some images with the "wrong" creative commons licences, removed some incorrect bits in the Tudor Poor Laws section. The Opposition section has been moved and changed to reflect the fact it is about opposition to both poor laws. Francium12 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a definite improvement. Unfortunately, I won't be able to officially pass the article until next week as I'm going away, and there are a few things left to do: a few hanging sentences at the end of paragraphs remain, unreferenced; Scotland and Ireland, and Historiography, as sections, seems a little awkward at the moment and need referencing; the lead could do with a couple of extra sentences about opposition and other topics. Good work so far, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


### Couple of non-reviewer comments
Hi, I'd like to add a couple of additional, drive-by comments.

The quotation in the lead describing the Poor Law as a "welfare state in miniature" strikes me as somewhat unbalanced, and I don't really think it's supported by the body. For example, the body notes that The Old Poor Law allowed for despotic overseer behaviour, and for beatings. It describes how, under the New Poor Law, "The primary problem was that in order to make the diet of the Workhouse inmates "less eligible" than what they could expect outside, it would be necessary to starve the inmates beyond an acceptable level. It was for this reason that other ways were found to deter entrance to the Workhouses." Those are not the kind of ideas that are particularly prominent in the Beveridge Report. Something along the lines of  this summary would seem to me to be better balanced.
These seem contradictory:
"The origins of the English Poor Law system can be traced back as far as the fifteenth century".
"In 1388, the Statute of Cambridge was passed, making each individual parish responsible for administering poor relief to the impotent poor"
The lead states that legislation can be traced to 1536 but that date doesn't appear anywhere in the body.
The Further Reading section shows that is no shortage of scholarly sources available, yet most of the article seems to be sourced to broad-based online material. As far as I can see, many of these source are not exactly bad, but they don't really strike me as the best to use for building an encyclopedia.
Peter Higinbotham seems to have made himself into something of an expert on workhouses, and has published a couple of books, but he's essentially an amateur working in his spare time. These look better to me.  Mary Bloy doesn't appear to be published, and doesn't seem to have any particular expertise in this area. Tim Lambert decided to create a "World History Encyclopedia" because if you know a bit about your subject, you may as well create your own website for everyone to read.
I don't want to be overly critical, but it does strike me that the article would be improved if it relied more heavily on some of the more scholarly sources available, and I definitely think the lead needs some work.--MoreThings (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept there is a lack of scholary sources but its only something I can rectify when I have access to a University subscription service (isn't it more of an issue for a FA rather than a GA?)I am the only person working on this article! But to be fair both :Peter Higinbotham and Mary Bloy are accurate and were in many ways more detailed/extensive than the textbooks I used at A-level to study the Poor Law. The issue about the "start" of the coverage is a good one. I suppose 1388 is the one we should use as the Statute of Cambridge was a Poor Law of sorts - need some decent refs for this. Yes I think the quote in the lead can go Francium12 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Or even 1349 according to [3] Francium12 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree regarding the sources as far as GA/FA is concerned. It was the quotation that really jumped out at me, and I think it would be better off without that. The rest were just a few thoughts that occurred while reading it through.
Britannica has it as a body of laws developed in the 16th-century, codified in 1587-98, and maintained and modified until after WW2. That's fairly close to our first sentence. From there I wonder if would be better to avoid anything along the lines of "...can be traced back as far as xxxx" but stick with  "...there is much earlier Tudor [or perhaps late medieval]..." so sidestepping the need to give a specific start date.
Things like "The history of the Poor Laws...is usually divided between [the reign of Elizabeth and 1834]" could also do with a tweak because, as this article shows, the history of the Laws  covers a greater period than that. --MoreThings (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I now believe this article to be of GA Status. I have created just about every article in the Category:Poor Law so might take a break from the topic once it has passed Francium12 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is very close to a pass now, but before I do pass it I would like to see a few more citation details filled in - there are still some very short / vague ones. Surely it must be possible to fill in a few details? Reflinks can't do all the work for you. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The GA reviewer has stated his willingness to pass the article on my talk page (User talk:Francium12). Thank you to everyone who helped get this to GA status.  Francium12  21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The page doesn't actually say, I think, until some way down, what poor laws actually did. Can the writers please make this clearer in the introduction? In a number of places I think it's the same - when going through the historical acts, there's a tendency to not be specific about what the Acts actually provided for poor people, what they actually established, funding, etc, etc. Otherwise not a bad article at all! Wikidea 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Act aimed to reduce the burden on rate payers and can be seen as an attempt by the Whig government to win the votes of the classes enfranchised by the Second Reform Act." Does this sentence actually mean to refer to the Great Reform Act? Wikidea 17:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no mention of the monasteries here.  Was the lack of charitable support for the poor from religious orders not a reason why the need for the poor law was perceived when it was?  Deipnosophista (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned in the Tudor Poor Law section Ulcerspar12 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on English Poor Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605222825/http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?gco/outdoorlabourtestintro.shtml to http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?gco/outdoorlabourtestintro.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100813141943/http://www.btinternet.com:80/~m.royden/mrlhp/local/poorlaw/poorlaw.htm to http://www.btinternet.com/~m.royden/mrlhp/local/poorlaw/poorlaw.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605234634/http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Ireland/Ireland.shtml to http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Ireland/Ireland.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on English Poor Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430120726/http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/teach/history/projects/plague/economy.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.museumofreading.org.uk/collections/album/pdfs/battle%20hospital%20-%2070.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430120726/http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm to http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/historyf.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040812060132/http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk:80/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=167 to http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=167
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on English Poor Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105105148/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105105148/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616095301/http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com:80/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Sturdy+Beggars&offset=0 to http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Sturdy+Beggars&offset=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106050650/http://homepage.newschool.edu:80/het/profiles/walras.htm to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://library-2.lse.ac.uk/archives/handlists/CollMisc0231/CollMisc0231.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105105148/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615224440/http://eh.net/abstracts/archive/0171.php to http://eh.net/abstracts/archive/0171.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105105148/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050512113238/http://51.1911encyclopedia.org:80/P/PO/POOR_LAW.htm to http://51.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PO/POOR_LAW.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120124858/http://users.ox.ac.uk:80/~peter/workhouse/UnionsEngland.html to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/UnionsEngland.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Content overlaps Rathfelder (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Less content here than in the main article Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on English Poor Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504111530/http://institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/the_poor_law1.htm to http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/the_poor_law1.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611095914/http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/newpoor.htm to http://freespace.virgin.net/owston.tj/newpoor.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Sturdy+Beggars&offset=0
Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/senior.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828041756/http://learningcurve.gov.uk/victorianbritain/caring/default.htm to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/victorianbritain/caring/default.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?gco%2Foutdoorlabourtestintro.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906140144/http://www.swallowcliffehall.com/workh.html to http://www.swallowcliffehall.com/workh.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719082356/http://www.balcarras.gloucs.sch.uk/curriculum/pupilpages/his/year13/poverty/poorlaw18471900.pdf to http://www.balcarras.gloucs.sch.uk/curriculum/pupilpages/his/year13/poverty/poorlaw18471900.pdf
Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090506233648/http%3A//www.learningcurve.gov.uk/britain1906to1918/timeline/g2_timeline.htm to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/britain1906to1918/timeline/g2_timeline.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120213539/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/britain1906to1918/g2/background.htm to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/britain1906to1918/g2/background.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
Added archive https://archive.is/20061005072715/http://www.nationalarchives.ie/research/poorlaw.html to http://www.nationalarchives.ie/research/poorlaw.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workhouses.org.uk/index.html?Ireland%2FIreland.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://51.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PO/POOR_LAW.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on English Poor Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AYNaC0Vs?url=http://www.kingsnorton.info/time/poor_law_workhouse_timeline.htm to http://www.kingsnorton.info/time/poor_law_workhouse_timeline.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Added a link to the vagrancy wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodriguezcordova (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)