Indoor Relief pre-1834

• Definition of ‘indoor relief’

  Paupers (poor people- usually able-bodied) being housed in ‘Workhouses’ (parish)
• 2 examples of indoor relief that was offered before 1834

  1724: Sleeping and eating in a house provided by the local government - employed

  1829: Workhouses - terrible conditions and overcrowded
• Four reasons why indoor relief was so attractive to parishes

  • They were cheap run and maintain for the parish
  • workhouses could be privatised therefore bringing costs down further
  • some work houses could also generate their own incomes by selling goods made by inmates (aim to make poor relief self-supporting)
  • Paupers were typically put off entering workhouses (workhouse test act, 1723 - people were less eligible to enter)
• What was the number of workhouses that existed by the end of the 18th century?

  Approx. 2000 (1 in 7 parishes ran a workhouse)
• Two examples of Gilberts administrative changes

  • ‘Guardians’ were required to submit annual returns of Poor law expenditure (a.k.a. ‘Gilbert’s records) – Parishes could keep a comprehensive record of what’s being spent on poor relief forcing comparisons
  • able– bodied workers where to be excluded from the Gilbert union workhouses thus only access for seniors, the sick and children. Therefore, becoming more like old Almshouses
• two successes in Gilberts administrative changes

  • Scope of indoor relief expanded as number of workhouses forming a Union increased (Thomas Gilbert, MP for Lichfield was head of over 60 Gilbert union workhouses)
  • workhouses became even more cost-effective and efficient
• Failure of Gilbert’s administrative changes

  • some parishes were slow to adopt Gilbert’s guidance
  • only two of Gilbert suggestions were made mandatory by parliament (The Gilbert records and information about local charities providing poor relief as well)
• Two examples of Sturges-Bourne’s administrative changes

  • Set up a new voting system for those in the parish. Parishioners could vote about how the poor rate was spent that was given to the upper classes comment encouraging them to take more interest in poor relief.
  • added a resident clergyman to be a member of vestry. This person will decide whether the poor were ‘deserving’ or ’undeserving’
• Success of Sturges-Bourne’s administrative changes

  • by 1825, 46 vestries had reduced the cost of their poor relief
• Failures of Sturges-Bourne’s administrative changes

  Reductions were often at the expense of the destitute: not all of those refused relief by the clergyman were scrounges
• When did William Sturges-Bourne (chair of a House of Commons poor law committee) introduce the changes

  1818 and 1819
• Overall, biggest success of indoor relief

  Reduced cost of looking after the poor
• Overall, biggest failure of indoor relief

  Ignoring groups that need the same amount of help as the others

  Stigma that poverty is a sin
• My opinion on biggest success of indoor relief

  Larger sums of people were able to have a bed and food on the table due to the number of workhouses increasing throughout the years
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  outdoor relief systems- Speenhamland 1795


  system of economic relief for the poor that was adopted over much of England

  practice was to raise workingmen's income to an agreed level, [the money to come out of the parish rates.]

  + not always in ££ could be bread e.g price of 3 gallon loaves a week for each man

  The money was to cover all expenses.

  --- This allowance system lasted until the enactment of the Poor Law Amendment (1834).

  
  

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the Overseers:

  - Employers could lower wages and landlords could raise rents.

  ---> Both knowing that the public purse would pick up the cost.

  - problems of seasonal unemployment

  - Not all areas took into consideration the no. of children.

  - Some gave relief in flour which was meant to be temporary.

  
  

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the paupers

  - Contemporaries claimed it encouraged idleness.

  -- Especially as 'slack' times of the year could be ⅓-½ the year!

  - More money for more children= earlier marriage and more children.

  
  

  overall effectiveness

  - Overseers struggled to cope with changing econ conditions particularly after 1815.

  - This system was mostly used in areas with greatest risk of social unrest.

  - never given legal backing

  - often abandoned / modified out of recognition

  --- struggled w/ econ conditions [esp after 1815]

  4/10
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  define terms

  Poor rate = local tax collected by JP's to provide relief for parish poor

  
  

  Pauper = Anyone in receipt of poor relief

  
  

  Parish = area

  
  

  Poor relief = taxes/benefits for the poor

  
  

  Lassiez-Faire = without interference

  
  

  indigence = a person's inability to support themselves
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  prev laws

  Elizabethan Poor Law - stated a person claiming relief had to be returned to place of birth to receive it

  
  

  The 1662 Act of Settlement = stated that the place of legal settlement of every pauper had to be determined

  Settlement laws designed to control migrant pop

  - not applied consistently

  - hated/evaded by the poor

  -manipulated by the admin

  
  

  parish = responsible for looking after the poor until 1834

  
  

  overseer of the poor= might be church warden, landowner, farmers

  
  

  Old Poor Law replaced in 1834

  O.P.L strength = system to provide help for poor/needy

  O.P.L weakness = does nothing for causes of poverty
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  The organisation of the parish-based relief system

  parish-based relief system

  = unit of gov w/unpaid + non professional admin

  - local based system designed to collect relief from

  - each parish was to admin their own relief to their own poor

  - collect taxes to provide appropriate relief

  
  

  advantages

  - by inc admin of the Poor Law (in 1,500ish parishes) in Eng/Wales

  -- Elizabethan legislators ensured local needs = met

  - dispensing relief based on small admin unit

  ---> inc oppo for humanity/sensitivity

  ---> bc those seeking/dispensing relief = familiar

  ---> better able to distinguish who needs relief

  
  

  disadvantages

  - BUT immense diversity in practice throughout country in early years in 19th C

  - <oppo for tyrannical behaviour [local overseers of the poor]

  - any local crisis [e.g bad harvests] could place large burden on locally raised finances
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  categorising the poor

  Deserving poor

  = poor through no fault of their own [e.g old/sick/children]

  
  

  Undeserving poor

  = poverty result of moral failure [e.g drunkenness/prostitution]

  
  

  Impotent poor

  = poor who couldn't look after themselves even when times were good [e.g disabled/elderly]

  
  

  Idle poor

  = those who refused to work and continue a life of begging and crime

  
  

  Able-bodied poor

  = paupers who wanted relief but were able to work
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  the problem of the 'able-bodied pauper'

  dealt w/able bodied poor by categorising them
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  outdoor relief systems- Roundsman

  system when too many paupers > work available

  - able bodied pauper labourers sent in rotation to local farmers

  - overseer sign ticket --> signed by employer --> paid

  -- parish would pay the diff e.g bread

  - This allowance system lasted until the enactment of the Poor Law Amendment (1834).

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the Overseers

  - no account for personal circumstances

  - farmer may take adv ---> bc diff paid by parish

  - no min wage

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the paupers

  - Argument that paupers would not work to full ability because they knew they were being paid less by the farmer.

  - lack of incentive

  
  

  overall effectiveness

  - easy to take adv of by employer

  - Used in areas with too many paupers for work available.

  - Some parishes based dif on price of bread and size of family. Others had a flat rate.
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  outdoor relief systems- the Labour Rate. 1832-34


  - involved agreement between parishioners

  - to est labour rate in addition to poor rate

  - total parish labour bill worked out w/what was assumed to be the going market rate

  - used from 1832 to 1834

  - workers were paid at a given rate ---> if this was not met then the rest had to be made up by the parish's poor relief.

  
  

  It was authorised by the Agricultural Labourers Act 1832, and adopted in about 1 in 5 parishes

  .....until it was replaced by the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the Overseers

  - avoids Roundsman issues

  - farmers don't have to pay

  
  

  Possibility of being abused by the paupers

  - Same contemporary argument that paupers would not work to full ability.

  - Know that married men preferred for work than single men. could this increase marriage rates?

  
  

  overall effectiveness

  - highest take up -- 1 in 5 parishes

  - 6.5/10
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  Indoor relief in poorhouses, workhouses and houses of correction

  this initial division of...

  
  

  poorhouses/almshouses = impotent poor [old, sick]

  workhouses = able-bodied poor [work, live at home]

  houses of correction [punished] = idle poor [begging, vagrancy]

  
  

  .... never really worked in practice...was not cost effective for each parish to provide for paupers like this.

  
  

  so in latter half of 18thC some parishes tried variety of approaches to make poor relief = united in knowledge days of single parish as unit of admin = limited

  
  

  e.g by 1780 approx 1/2 of parishes in Suffolk part of some combination w/neighbourhood parishes --> to build workhouses

  
  

  sig factor - in uniting parishes = transfer of authority away from

  parish overseers ----> elected/appt guardians of the poor

  
  

  overseers tended to be local farmers tradesmen

  guardians tended to be magistrates, gentry, and upper ranks of tenant farmers
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  the impact of Gilbert's Act 1782 [indoor relief]


  need for reform to poor laws bc

  - ending of the American War of Independence 1782-- demobilised soldiers/sailors flooded the labour market

  - early stages of ind attracted those looking for work

  ---> depop of countryside/inc pressure on urban parishes to provide relief

  
  

  sought to overhaul the local admin system of relief

  
  

  examples of Gilbert admin changes

  1- overseers replaced by paid guardians

  2- parishes combine / merge

  3- Gilbert Union workhouse solely for the aged, children and sick

  
  

  successes of Gilbert admin changes

  1- less corruption

  2- ministries/church wardens required to provide info about local charities that mirrored the support given by Poor Law

  
  

  failure of Gilbert's admin changes

  - permissive --> inconsistent
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  The Sturges-Bourne Acts 1818 and 1819 [indoor relief]


  to vote who was in select vestry [owned land and could vote on how poor relief should be distributed]

  
  

  AIM OF BOTH = tie the landowners / gentry / well to-do more firmly into the admin of the poor

  
  

  1818 - qualification of who votes - how to elect select vestries who = resp for local admin of pool law

  1819 - added a clergyman to members of the vestry

  ---> applicants character/circumstance --> distinguishing between deserving/undeserving poor

  
  

  !! BOTH acts made access to poor relief HARDER

  success of Sturges-Bourne

  
  

  - 1825 IN 7 YEARS (7X8 =46)- 46 select vestries had been formed --> many experienced remarkable drop in cost of news

  
  

  failure of Sturges-B Act

  - many who were genuinely destitute --> remained destitute
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  less eligibility and the workhouse test [indoor relief]


  less eligibility is described to have worsened the conditions of a workhouse to be a lesser alternative to the conditions outside

  
  

  which tested whether the person's request for relief was bad enough to endure this

  (excluding the old/children/sick)
• halfway well done

  
  

  xxx ;)
• 1 Paupers and pauperism, 1780-1832 [KT3]

  
  

  Pressures for change: 1780-1834


  increasing cost of providing poor relief [financial arguments]

  The impact of the wars with France [financial argument]

  The impact of agricultural unrest: the 'Swing' riots [financial argument]

  Individuals and regional differences (North)

  ideological arguments
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  increasing cost of providing poor relief [financial argument]

  - becoming clear that cost of poor relief = rising sig

  -- Old Poor Law struggling

  e.g

  1803 avg expenditure = £4,268 per 9s 2d head of pop

  1829-33 avg expenditure = £6,758 per 9s 8d head of pop

  
  

  traditionally - parishes looked after their own poor --> by raising money on property tax

  -- in stable conditions worked reasonably well

  
  

  BUT society in early years of 19th C = far from stable

  1- w/ inc ppl turning from poor to pauper---> enlarging the existing underclass

  2- mobility of pop [hundreds crowding parishes in ind areas + claiming poor relief]

  
  

  Returning soldiers added to the already large population, and more than ever were claiming relief. ---> Poor relief reached an £8 million per year.

  
  

  As ex-soldiers became more disillusioned, radical protests broke out and the government had to suspend habeas corpus (meaning people could now be trialled indefinitely and with no trial!)

  and introduced the Six Acts, which prohibited the gathering of more than 50 people and prevented radical literature from being published.

  
  

  all over country - overall cost to the nation of poor relief = rising
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  The impact of the wars with France [financial argument]

  - After the war, cheap foreign corn could again be imported from Europe, which forced English farmers to keep their prices low.

  
  

  - The Napoleonic wars ended in 1815. The harvests of 1813 and 1814 were good both in England and the continent, meaning there was an abundance of grain.
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  The impact of agricultural unrest: the 'Swing' riots [financial argument] 1830


  - Due to farmers being forced to keep low prices for their corn ---> many went bankrupt as they had wartime taxes outstanding, or interest on outstanding loans for enclosure.

  
  

  --> Farmers who survived this had to reduce workers' wages, thereby creating more pauperism.

  
  

  - In over 20 counties - the rural poor burned hayricks and barns, smashed threshing machines and intimidated their employers.

  
  

  They wanted higher wages and the removal of the steam-powered threshing machine.

  
  

  
  

  - All petitions were signed under a 'Captain Swing', which gave the impression that it was an organised revolt under one leader.

  In reality, he didn't even exist.

  
  

  - The authorities though believed = organised dissent

  to avoid a revolution

  ---> came down harshly on the rioters. 19 rioters were sentenced to death, 400 transported to Australia etc

  
  

  - government brought in the Corn Laws to protect British farmers.

  Foreign corn could not be imported until British corn had reached 80 shillings a quarter.

  In theory, this worked.

  In practice, people resented it and it actually kept bread prices artificially high.

  
  

  OVERALL

  A positive outcome of the Swing riots was that they created a political climate, especially in parliament, where reform of the poor laws was becoming more than a possibility; it was an urgent necessity.
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  Individuals and regional differences (North)


  Nottinghamshire = the 5th-most industrialised county in Britain

  - but their relief was way below the national average.

  - However, they experimented with implementation of poor law reform.

  - Reverend J.T. Becher made 'deterrent workhouses' with an emphasis on segregation of inmates.

  -- He insisted on kindness, however, to the aged and infirm.

  
  

  In Gloucestershire, J.H. Lloyd Baker (a JP) introduced rigorous reforms and within two years the number of paupers fell from 977 to 125.

  - The method of his success was to abolish outdoor relief and make the workhouse so terrible that only the very desperate would seek admission

  
  

  The Reverend Robert Lowe of Bingham, Nottinghamshire agreed with the concept of deterrence

  - advocating that outdoor relief should be abolished entirely. - - He tried to make the workhouse a place of fear.

  
  

  George Nicholls, a retired sea captain, moved to Southwell, Nottinghamshire and was appointed overseer by Reverend J.T. Becher.

  - He also agreed with Lowe, and came to the conclusion that the allowance systems themselves were responsible for the continuation of poverty.

  - He claimed to have eliminated outdoor relief through his well-regulated workhouse.

  
  

  Reverend Thomas Whately, Berkshire, adopted a somewhat different approach.

  - When able-bodied poor applied for relief, he offered them work at a lower rate than that which was generally paid in the parish.

  - He claimed that 63 long-term recipients immediately left the parish.

  --- Parishes in London, Bristol, and Norwich subsequently adopted similar policies.

  
  

  Headley and Selbourne, two villages in Hampshire, witnessed a combined operation against threshing machines, tithes and overseers of the poor.

  Labourers extracted written assurances of the reduction of the tithe and pulled down two workhouses in both parishes.

  
  

  In Wiltshire, the major landowner John Bennett MP had drawn up a particularly harsh allowance scale for poor relief in 1817

  - 13 years later, became the target of violent demonstrations.

  - He led a troop of yeomanry against the rioters but sorted their grievances in the local vestry meeting.

  
  

  In the village of Brede, Sussex, a group of labourers launched a movement against the overseers, namely Mr Abel, who was hated for his use of the parish cart to remove paupers.

  - The frightened gentry agreed to their demands.

  - William Cobbett had lectured at various places in the county, and it was popularly believed that he was deliberately inciting the paupers to arson.
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  ideological argument: Thomas Malthus [1766-1834]

  - specialised in demography = study of pop

  - population led to reduced food supplies

  
  

  - argues Poor Law worsened situation -- enc poor to have more and more children-- to claim more relief

  - uncontrolled reproduction = main problem

  
  

  
  

  scrap Poor Law --> no financial incentives to have children so would ---> lower pop increase
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  ideological argument: David Ricardo [1772-1823]


  - political economic who reached same conclusions as Malthus about poor laws - but diff route

  
  

  - econ argument

  poor relief --> wages dec --> lack of incentives

  
  

  
  

  - only way to break this cycle = abolish poor laws !
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  ideological argument: Thomas Paine [1737-1809]


  - 'Rights of Man' argues Poor Law = inadequate

  --> proposed property tax on the rich --> to use for variety of support systems for the poor

  
  

  - Thinker + Quaker

  
  

  -argued able bodied --> workhouses before receiving relief
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  ideological argument: Robert Owen


  - fair owner

  
  

  - wants it to be a co-op

  
  

  - restricted working hours

  - children received edu> not work

  - sell goods to workers at cost price---> pay workers based on profits

  
  

  - ridiculed but --> incentives --> harder workers --> more profit
• Pressures for change: 1780-1834

  
  

  ideological argument: Jeremy Bentham and UTILITARIANISM

  UTILITARIANISM = greatest happiness for the greatest number of ppl

  --- consequences of actions > intentions

  = person's act is morally right ONLY IF it produces the best possible results in that specific situation.

  
  

  the others [Malthus, Owen, Ricardo, Paine] were imp in influencing philosophy/debate of how underclass should be treated

  -- BUT BENTHAM = starving underclass ---> would lead to revolution
• ALL DONE WELL DONE !!!!