It resulted from the 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws, which included Edwin Chadwick, John Bird Sumner and Nassau William Senior.

[2] Its theoretical basis was Thomas Malthus's principle that population increased faster than resources unless checked, the "iron law of wages" and Jeremy Bentham's doctrine that people did what was pleasant and would tend to claim relief rather than working.

The act was implemented, but the full rigours of the intended system were never applied in Northern industrial areas; however, the apprehension contributed to the social unrest of the period.

His views were influential and hotly debated without always being understood, and opposition to the old Poor Law which peaked between 1815 and 1820 was described by both sides as "Malthusian".

[9] Of those serving on the Commission, the economist Nassau William Senior identified his ideas with Malthus while adding more variables, and Bishop John Bird Sumner as a leading Evangelical was more persuasive than Malthus himself in incorporating the Malthusian principle of population into the Divine Plan, taking a less pessimistic view and describing it as producing benefits such as the division of property, industry, trade and European civilisation.

Chadwick believed that the poor rate would reach its "correct" level when the workhouse was seen as a deterrent and fewer people claimed relief.

It was recognised that individual parishes would not have the means to erect or maintain workhouses suitable for implementing the policies of "no outdoor relief" and segregation and confinement of paupers; consequently, the Commission was given powers to order the formation of Poor Law Unions (confederations of parishes) large enough to support a workhouse.

[10]: clause 25  The Commission was explicitly given powers to specify the number and salaries of Poor Law Board employees and to order their dismissal.

[10]: clause 52 Clause 15 of the Act gave the Commission sweeping powers: That from and after the passing of this Act the Administration of Relief to the Poor throughout England and Wales, according to the existing Laws, or such Laws as shall be in force at the Time being, shall be subject to the Direction and Control of the said Commissioners; and for executing the Powers given to them by this Act the said Commissioners shall and are hereby authorized and required, from Time to Time as they shall see Occasion, to make and Issue all such Rules, Orders, and Regulations for the Management of the Poor, for the Government of Workhouses and the Education of the Children therein, ... and for the apprenticing the Children of poor Persons, and for the Guidance and Control of all Guardians, Vestries, and Parish Officers, so far as relates to the Management or Relief of the Poor, and the keeping, examining, auditing, and allowing of Accounts, and making and entering into Contracts in all Matters relating to such Management or Relief, or to any Expenditure for the Relief of the Poor, and for carrying this Act into execution in all other respects, as they shall think proper; and the said Commissioners may, at their Discretion, from Time to Time suspend, alter, or rescind such Rules, Orders, and Regulations, or any of them: Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as enabling the said Commissioners or any of them to interfere in any individual Case for the Purpose of ordering Relief.

[10]: clause 98  However, it did not identify any means of penalising parishes or Unions which had not formed a legally constituted Board of Guardians.

Poor Law Unions were to be the necessary administrative unit for the civil registration of births, marriages and deaths introduced in 1837.

The Commission worked in Somerset House, hence were called such as The Bashaws of Somerset House[12] It was initially made up of Thomas Frankland Lewis, former Tory MP, George Nicholls, Overseer of the old system and John George Shaw Lefevre a lawyer, while Chadwick, an author of the Royal Commission's report was Secretary.

Implementation of the New Poor Law administrative arrangements was phased in, starting with the Southern counties whose problems the Act had been designed to address.

Some paupers were induced to migrate from the Southern to Northern towns, leading to a suspicion in the North that the New Poor Law was intended to drive wages down.

It was impossible to achieve both these aims, as the principle of less eligibility made people search for work in towns and cities.

Like the other children, Oliver was "denied the benefit of exercise" and compelled to carry out the meaningless task of untwisting and picking old ropes although he had been assured that he would be "educated and taught a useful trade.

"[15] In the North of England particularly, there was fierce resistance; the local people considered that the existing system there was running smoothly.

They argued that the nature of cyclical unemployment meant that any new workhouse built would be empty for most of the year and thus a waste of money.

According to a 2019 study, the 1834 welfare reform had no impact on rural wages, labour mobility or the fertility rate of the poor.

The study concludes, "this deliberately induced suffering gained little for the land and property owners who funded poor relief.