The English Poor in the Eighteenth Century

A Study in Social and Administrative History

Dorothy Marshall

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135031893
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

First published in 2006. In the eighteenth century England scope and activities of the Poor Laws were wider than they are to-day-they had jurisdiction over a larger class of people and were expected to do more for them-this widespread influence assumed particular importance after the Restoration, because from that date England was entering on a career of social and industrial change. The purpose of this study is to give an account both of the way in which the Poor Laws affected the lives of the mass of the labouring Poor in the later part of the seventeenth and during the eighteenth-century, and of the contemporary attitude towards poverty.

THE
ENGLISH POOR IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

CHAPTER I

THE CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY—OPINION

JUST as it is impossible to understand the significance of a man's action until we know the environment and influences which have moulded him, so it is impossible to understand any branch of legislation until we know something of the forces which inspired it, both in conception and in administration. In other words, some understanding of contemporary opinion is a vital prologue to the study of any phase of a past age. Such opinion may have accorded ill with the practice of the time—it may have had little direct influence on legislation—but, inevitably, since laws are administered by men, it pervades their details and becomes the force by which the bones of legislation are moved. This is especially the case when legislation deals with such a subject as the regulation of the Poor, which affects the lives and pockets of ordinary men. The Poor Laws, moreover, were administered, not by paid officials, but by ordinary citizens as a civic duty. That meant that contemporary opinion on the subject of the Poor was, in many cases, the opinion of the men who actually worked the machine. Therefore, in order to know the spirit in which the statutes dealing with the Poor were administered, it is necessary for us to study, as a preliminary, the social and economic atmosphere of the time to which they belong.

During the Middle Ages religion permeated every sphere of life. Hence it is not surprising to find that the earliest motives for relieving the Poor in England were predominantly religious. At an early date, we are told, the third part of the income of every church was to be devoted to this work. In the same way hospitality and charity to the Poor were stressed as being good works worthy of all Christian people. To give alms was a means of grace to the giver, even if the gift were ill-advised, and more likely to create than to remedy poverty. The doles from the monastery gates, the open table kept by wealthy nobles, the gifts of food and money at weddings and at funerals, were all indiscriminate charity, inspired partly, no doubt, by a love of display, but also by the religious idea that to give alms to the Poor was a means of grace for more fortunate persons. To be poor was not regarded as a fault of man, but as an inscrutable act of Providence: both rich and poor alike were members of one Church; both were brothers in Christ. While these beliefs obtained common acceptance, the main object of charity was the giving of alms to relieve, and not to prevent, poverty. Speaking generally, one might almost say that throughout the early Middle Ages there was no public consciousness that poverty ought to be prevented. The Bible had stated that, “ye have the Poor with you always”, and at a time when theology and sociology were inextricably mixed, this seemed reason enough for leaving things as they appeared to have been ordered by Providence.

It was therefore natural that the parish, which was the unit of ecclesiastical administration, should play a large part in the organization of charity. When England moved out of the Middle Ages the Tudors found the parish a convenient division for local government, such as the repair of the roads, and other functions of a non-religious kind. So when it became necessary to provide systematic relief for the Poor, the parochial machinery was adapted to meet the situation, leaving an indelible mark on the history of poor relief in England.

The Reformation destroyed the old idea of the fellowship of Christ, and in Protestant countries faith, not works, became the slogan for Heaven; and, once Charity had been robbed of a vague mysticism, men attempted to tackle its problems in a practical manner. Mean-while, with changing social conditions, the problem itself had changed, and the extremities to which the poorer sort were reduced threatened to become an intolerable nuisance to the State. The reasons for this have been enumerated often; the decay of serfdom, which meant that men were free, but also free to starve; the breakdown of the self-sufficiency of the manor; the increase of sheep farming; the end of civil war and the abandonment of large bodies of retainers; the dissolution of the monasteries—all have been held responsible for the flood of vagrancy and pauperism which distinguished the social history of the Tudor sovereigns. Accordingly, what people, and especially the governing classes, chiefly desired, was not an opportunity for indiscriminate alms-giving, but a method for the prevention of poverty. For poverty was regarded as a potential danger to the State, and was, therefore, a peril to the King. At a time when no monarch was so firmly seated on the throne that he, or she, did not fear rebellion, persons who went up and down the country-side, starving and discontented, and linking up the country with a web of dissatisfaction, were regarded as a menace. For these Poor were capable of forming the nucleus around which any one of the Pretenders, who from time to time aspired to the English throne, might form an army. In short, the Poor must be relieved, if not on religious grounds, then for the sake of ensuring political security, and so Prevention and Punishment became the watchwords of the government when dealing with poverty. Elizabeth endeavoured, by apprenticeship and by yearly hirings, to prevent persons from falling into poverty; she tried to put down vagrancy by whipping, and she aimed at a decent relief for the impotent poor, chiefly to prevent them from begging. Above all she tried to find employment for all who wanted it by ordering the parish Overseers to set the Poor of their parish on work. In this way she hoped to prevent the Poor from wandering. The sixteenth century was an age of State regulation, and such provisions were in accordance with the public opinion of the time. In a paternal state, it was an impossible idea that men might be allowed to starve for want of due regulation. The fellowship of the Church had given way to the autocratic authority of the sovereign, but rich and poor were still members of the same family.

One effect of the Civil Wars was to sweep away this paternal conception of the peculiar relationship between the Crown and the Poor. Henceforth the stress was laid, not on the group, nor on the King, but on the individual. The cult of Independency emphasized this tendency by its appeal to the separate conscience of each man. More than ever were men encouraged to think and act for themselves. By the time Charles II had come to the throne, the leaven of individualism had gone too far to be counteracted by any power of his, even had he wished to stop it. In the age that followed, the Poor were like the proverbial bundle of sticks, which could be separated and broken one by one. Deserted by Church and King, when the prevailing creed was “ the devil take the hindermost,” the rôle of “hindermost” nearly always fell to them.

The last half of the seventeenth century was a period of transition. Neither the old paternal supervision of the early Stuarts, nor the harsh materialism of the eighteenth century, was yet in complete possession of the field. Old motives for relieving the Poor persisted, though often in a changed form; but, at the same time, new ideas on the subject were clamouring to be heard. As a consequence these years are full of apparent contradictions, and on all sides there is a seeming confusion of thought. Some writers are found who still hold the views of the older school, while others advocate the use of stern measures towards the Poor. Though the result of this conflict was to determine men's attitude towards the problem of poverty for nearly threequarters of a century, it is difficult to say which view was predominant before 1700.

Religion still continued to exercise some faint influence over the administration of relief, but to say how much was lip-service only would not be easy. Even this influence was inherently changed from that which had held sway throughout the Middle Ages. To give alms was no longer a mystic act of grace, but a practical duty towards God. “Suppose, Sirs,” wrote Hains, “there were no Profit to be reaped. That what we contribute is only a mere Act of Charity, accomplishing the happy Reformation, Comfortable Imployment and Maintenance of the Poor. Consider, I say, if this were all, whether it would be safe to keep that interest or money, which we ought to part with, and improve for God's glory and the good of many of our poor Neighbours; since by so doing we may incur his displeasure and our own ruine for ever.”¹ The Poor, even to such persons as were still influenced by a religious motive, were no longer an opportunity, but merely a responsibility, and in time even this aspect of the religious duty of relieving the Poor became entangled with other motives not even remotely religious. By the middle of the succeeding century Bailey found nothing incongruous in writing in the same paragraph that it was both our duty to God, and very good for our trade, to provide for the Poor. Thus he wrote, “ To provide a comfortable Subsistence for the Poor, is Most certainly a Duty highly obligatory upon every Person in whom the traces of moral virtue are not quite obliterated; the performance of which is equally required by Policy and Religion. This is a Charity of the utmost extent; which, if conducted according to the following plan, by employing the Poor in Parish Workhouses, will very much promote the Commerce, Wealth and Peace of this Kingdom. These Houses will also become proper Schools to train up the Children of the Poor to Religious Sobriety and Industry, who would otherwise be brought up in Sloath, Ignorance and Vice. They will likewise be nurseries for Spinners, Weavers and other Artificers, in the Woollen, Linen and Cloth Manufacture, and give Occasion to the Exercise of many other Trades and useful Employments.”² Such an extract illustrates the great gulf which divided the religious motive for relief in the Middle Ages from that which influenced men in the early eighteenth century. The latter was not strong enough, and lacked the driving force to make it a real and effective incitement to the relief of the Poor.

The paternal idea of the Tudors and early Stuarts persisted longer. The material conditions, which prevailed for the first few years after the Restoration, were favourable to its continuance. After the late political disturbances, the country was in a very disorganized state; much land had changed hands, and no one was sure of his title to it; a sense of unrest, fatal to industry, was abroad. Moreover, from 1660–63, 1678–9, and 1693–1700, corn was scarce, and prices were high. Writers speak as if trade were in a desperate condition. Davenant said that the Balance of Trade was £1,993,207 against us in 1662.³ From all accounts they were difficult years for the labouring part of the community. Hains, writing in 1674, says, “So general and loud for diverse years past, have been the complaints, for want of trade and money throughout this nation; and so pressing are the necessities of most men, that there is scarce any person that can be insensible to it. … Poverty seems to have invaded the whole nation. Leases being thrown up constantly in the country, and tradesmen breaking daily in the City … and Labourers generally, if they have families, are ready to run abegging, the Poverty of most Parishes being such that they can hardly supply or relieve them.”⁴ Even allowing for some exaggeration, conditions were so bad that men must have been well aware of the hardships which they imposed on the poorer sort. In this connection it is interesting to note that during the seventeenth century the majority of tracts dealing with the questions of poverty were written when corn was dear. For instance, out of twenty-two pamphlets dealing with the Poor, eighteen were written in years when the price of corn was high, and only four when it was low. This looks as if, during the seventeenth century, poverty was still believed to be the result of circumstances rather than of depravity, and as though it were felt that in time of need it was still the duty of the more prosperous classes to discover some means by which the Poor could earn a fair living. Thus, during these years, writer after writer propounds views in accordance with these sentiments. Hale, speaking of the employment of the Poor, says, “It would be an abundant recompense, by accustoming the poor sort to a civil and industrious course of life,”⁵ even if such employment involved the authority which organized it in some financial loss. Sir Joshua Child held similar views as to the responsibility of the government, regarding it as “our Duty to God and Nature so to provide for and employ the Poor,” whether such employment should “turn to present profit or not.”⁶ Such employment, he thought, would be amply worth while if it kept the Poor from begging and stealing. Other writers thought, “that it would be safer, more profitable, and less chargeable to these kingdoms to imploy the poor that want other employment, in making Inclosures and Fortifications or in Planting trees or in making Store Houses or Work Houses, or in other public structures, than to suffer them to be idle and take ill courses.”⁷ However little these views were translated into action, there is abundant evidence to show that men still thought that no man who was willing to work should be allowed to lack employment, and that it was the function of authority to provide such employment. With these writers there is no hint of laissez faire, no suggestion that the balance of unemployment should be redressed by the laws of supply and demand.

By the end of the seventeenth century the economic outlook had changed. In spite of unemployment and temporary distress the trade of the country had been growing steadily. Davenant said that in 1686 we had “near double the tonnage of trading ships to what we had in 1666,”⁸ and that rents in some parts of the country had risen from twenty to twenty-six years' purchase, and in others from fourteen to seventeen or eighteen. In 1698 the Balance of Trade was reported to be £43,320 8s. 1d. in our favour, and every year trade was increasing. Our exports, which were valued at £3.525,90618s. 6d. in 1696, had risen to £16,365,953 os. 7d. in 1760.⁹ Moreover, owing to the increased use of enclosures and the new methods of agriculture, both of which were growing in importance throughout this period, the food supply of the country was not so precarious as in former years. This change in the material condition of the country produced a natural reaction in men's attitude towards the Poor. For in spite of this increase in the national wealth and prosperity the Poor Rates continued to rise. This was more than contemporaries could understand, and a new bitterness superseded the old sense of responsibility towards the Poor. After the eighties this new spirit became very noticeable in the writings of Dunning and Locke. They protested that the rates would never be lowered by providing the Poor with work, but only by driving them to obtain work for themselves, and to this end they advocated considerable sternness. In the next century this school of thought received a powerful adherent in Defoe. By 1720 the idea of providing work as a method of relief had practically died out, and the men who advocated workhouses were animated by a determination that the Poor should not have something for nothing. It was with this object that Overseers were empowered to confine all their poor in workhouses, and to refuse them relief if they objected to this treatment. Until the close of the sixties in the eighteenth century, opinion with regard to the relief of the Poor favoured the strict execution of such provisions, and writers aimed, not at softening, but rather at tightening, the administration of the Poor Laws. By the seventies, however, there were increasing signs that writers had progressed as far along these lines as they intended to go, and that a reaction in favour of more lenient treatment towards the Poor was setting in.

Such was the general trend of opinion with regard to the Poor during this period. The whole question was one which aroused much interest, and there is no lack of writers to illustrate each phase and point of view. But whether they treated poverty as a misfortune or as a crime, and whether they wished to reform circumstances or individuals, in one thing they were unanimous, namely in their desire to devise some plan or regulation by which to check the Poor Rates in their upward flight.

In dealing with the question of the Poor most writers followed the three great lines of classification adopted by 43 Eliz. c. 2. This act divided the Poor into the aged and impotent, children, and such persons as were able but unemployed. Not very much controversy raged about the best methods of dealing with the two former classes. Neither in the seventeenth nor in the eighteenth century did writers waste their time on the case of such persons as by illness or age were unable to maintain themselves. It was popularly supposed that the number of these persons would not be large, once the able-bodied Poor had been absorbed into industry, and it was considered that they might be safely left to the parish officer to relieve as aforetimes. When an author was engaged in advocating the establishment of workhouses, he usually suggested that certain quarters might be assigned therein to such poor as were incapable of doing anything in their own support, on the ground that they could be more cheaply maintained in that way than by the payment of separate allowances. Other writers advocated outdoor relief for these types of paupers, but it was not a point on w...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
• PREFACE
• INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER I : THE CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY—OPINION
• CHAPTER II: THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL EQUIPMENT OF THE PARISH
• CHAPTER III: THE PARTIAL SUCCESS OF THE PARISH IN THE SPHERE OF POOR RELIEF
• CHAPTER IV: THE FAILURE OF THE PARISH TO EMPLOY THE POOR
• CHAPTER V: THE EFFECT OF THE PAROCHIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW ON THE STATE OF THE POOR
• CHAPTER VI: THE FAILURE OF THE ACT OF SETTLEMENTS
• CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION
• NOTES
• INDEX