Title: | Research Paper: The Poor Law in Longtown |
Date: | 1820 - 1840 |
THE POOR LAW IN LONGTOWN 1820 - 1840
By Nina Wedell, March 2010
SUMMARY AND CONTENTS
This study examines Poor Law administration in Longtown from 1820 to 1840, recorded in a Minutes book of Longtown Vestry, the group of landholders charged among other duties with providing material support for those among the poor unable to meet basic needs. During this time span, a new Poor Law Act in 1834 brought more stringent controls on provision, which are reflected in the Minutes. Various facets of the Vestry’s work have been grouped in topic areas with transcriptions from the Minutes. Listed below are headings for the different topic areas, which can be accessed by scrolling down, or clicking for a particular section.
|
| Introduction : wider issues of the Poor Law and scope of the Vestry Minutes |
Closely knit rural communities traditionally look after those of their number who fall on hard times, from old age, illness, disability or lack of work. From time immemorial such needs have been met informally through family networks, neighbourly help and private charity. From Elizabethan times a formal system to provide for the needy was established, making the parish responsible for supporting the destitute and paying for this from local rates. The Poor Law of 1601 (also known as the Old Poor Law) made use of the existing framework of the parish for carrying out its provisions, thus introducing the idea of the civil parish as agent for secular functions, run by local landholders called the Vestry. For the purposes of the Poor Law, Longtown had the status of a parish (even though called a township) and its Vestry was responsible for administering the Poor Law within this geographical area, among other duties including the maintenance of local roads and bridges.
The book of Vestry Minutes for Longtown from 1820 to 1840 has survived to give a close-up view of how the Poor Law worked. The Minutes of 135 meetings over this period record the names of Vestry members and cover varied facets of their roles within the group. The names of the recipients are also noted, the nature of the help given and for what time scale: we can see in vivid detail the minutiae of Vestry provisions, from shoes to rent to bushels of wheat and weekly ‘pay’, which show a level of poverty close to the edge of survival. We also see the Vestry implementing the Settlement Law of 1662, whereby paupers could be removed from a parish where they had no right of settlement as defined in the Act.
This slice of time across 21 years is particularly significant because in 1834 there was a dramatic change in policy towards support for the poor, in the form of the Poor Law Amendment Act (also called the New Poor Law). The vocabulary used at the time illustrates attitudes to poverty reflected in the new law. ‘Poor relief’ was the umbrella term for all forms of support, including provision in kind or in cash, temporary or long term. Under the Old Poor Law, Vestries could provide ‘outdoor relief’ at their discretion, such as house rent or a cash subsidy, as distinct from sending individuals or families to a workhouse. The New Poor Law was a response to an increasing scale of poverty, especially where new cities and industries were attracting workers who were then liable to become a burden on the rates when times were hard. The New Poor Law introduced two new principles of deterrence. One was the ‘workhouse test’, by which poor relief for the able-bodied was conditional on entering a workhouse. The other was the principle of ‘less eligibility’: subsistence was set at a level less favourable or desirable than the lowest independent earnings. The new law permitted outdoor relief to the ‘indigent’ poor - the old, sick and otherwise debilitated, and to widows with young children. The able-bodied, especially men, were the main target of the workhouse test, which was thought to weed out the ‘deserving’ from the ‘undeserving’ poor, those truly in need from the workshy and scroungers. But when able-bodied men succumbed to the workhouse so too did their wives and children, and the same predicament applied to families deserted by husband and father.The term ‘pauper’ had a specific meaning, for those among the poor who were ‘chargeable to the rates’, not the condition of poverty itself. The New Poor Law shifted the structure of provision from parish Vestries acting independently and normally giving outdoor relief, to a new institutional framework, the Poor Law Union, consisting of a group of parishes with a shared workhouse. Longtown belonged to Dore Union, composed of 28 parishes including all the Ewyas Lacy parishes and others broadly from Madley to Grosmont. The workhouse itself was in the parish of Abbey Dore; it was purpose built and opened in 1839 for about 100 inmates.
The Minutes from 1820 to 1840 are not the only surviving Minutes for Longtown Vestry. Another, dating from 1775 to 1783 is not considered in this paper. The purpose here is to look in detail at a shorter period of time which covers the traditional role of the Vestry as well as the impact of change from the New Poor Law. However, this period shows more than a before-and-after picture. It reveals much about the social dynamics of Longtown, the many facets and style of the Vestry’s work, the abject level of poverty existing at that time, the effect of settlement laws on the free movement of people and labour, the inherent dilemma of the Vestry acting both as agent for provision and collector of taxes to pay for it. All of these issues can be seen in the brief notes apparently written during the course of each meeting. The Vestry seems to have been aware of national issues and debate, which had been ongoing for decades and anxious to comply with the law, as suggested by this entry:
|
| We order the present Overseers to purchase an Abstract of the Act of Parlament for Impowring the Inhabitants to hold a Vestry meeting for the Township of Parish Business according to the said Act of Parlement. May 1822 |
The Minutes book itself is a bound volume, usually with a separate page for each meeting, written in various hands. No agenda was provided, and items of business were jotted down without headings, apparently as they came into discussion or were recalled soon after. The frequency of meetings was highly variable, in the first few years at least once a month, and in the later years about four a year. Sometimes there was a single item of business, such as appointing officers or setting a rate, sometimes several including items of help for particular individuals. In this study, the many matters dealt with have been grouped under different topic headings for a clearer view of how the Poor Law was implemented in Longtown. The Vestry was also responsible for the maintenance of local roads and bridges through Surveyors of the Highway, and this function will be noted where it has bearing on provision for the poor.
Composition and meetings
The local landholders who took part in the business of Longtown Vestry probably would not have thought of themselves as ‘members’. They were not elected, most were farmers, all were men, and whether as tenants or freeholders their property was generally from 30 to 150 acres. All paid rates at a minimum rateable value of £10 per year, which was a requirement for Vestry participation. On the social scale the farmers would have been considered ‘yeomen’. No professions or members of the landed gentry are indicated, and the highest social rank, rarely noted, is ‘Mr’. At least two shopkeepers and two publicans took part[1] . No artisans or agricultural labourers participated This picture of Longtown Vestry characterises it as an ‘open’ Vestry, as distinct from a ‘select’ Vestry, with a selected membership typically in a more socially stratified community, rural or urban.
Attendance at meetings was optional, and apart from one regularly held annual meeting in March, the Vestry appears to have convened as the need arose. Advance notice of a meeting was pinned up on Longtown or Clodock church door and the Vestry normally met at Longtown church (which was the ‘chapel’ of the township). Meetings were often followed by adjournment to a public house, usually the Sun Inn next door, or the New Inn across the road, but also at the Crown, the Star (location not identified) and once at ‘Clodock Public’. On a few occasions the meeting adjourned straight away to conduct business in the pub, and no doubt the prospect of comfort and conviviality was always much preferred to a cold and dark church. Vestry records reflect this normal sequel to business as ‘expenses of the meeting’, usually five shillings, at a named inn
At any one meeting the attendance was typically 6 or 8, though could fall as low as 3. One or other of the Churchwardens was usually present, if not both, though the Vicar rarely attended. The names of attenders were always recorded, sometimes by signature and sometimes listed by the minutes scribe. Over the 21 year period covered, some 80 local landholders took part, during which time there would have been overlaps in the succession from older to younger generations, with perhaps 12 or so active participants in any one year. Participation in Longtown Vestry, therefore, gives every indication of a loose affiliation of local landholders who took part from their own choice.
In contrast to this picture of voluntary participation, the Vestry was a legally instituted body with legally enforceable duties carried out by appointed officers; Overseers of the Poor and Surveyors of the Highways. Two Overseers were appointed each year, who were selected by magistrates from a panel of some eight nominations and were paid £20 for the year plus expenses. The Overseers had the daunting task of allocating poor relief and collecting rates to pay for it. The job must have been unpopular, as it was rare for any individual to serve more than one year. Surveyors of the Highway (at least six monitors at any one time in six sub-districts of Longtown[2] ) were responsible for the upkeep of local roads; although their role was not part of the Poor Law it was closely related by offering work paid from Poor Rate funds. It overlapped with a similar duty of the manorial Court Leet which had originated in medieval times, and reflects an ongoing shift in the structure of local governance - as did Vestry appointments for the office of Constable to keep law and order (from one to three at any one time).
Overseers, Surveyors and Constables did not necessarily attend Vestry meetings; indeed many never came or turned up only once or twice. The impression gained from the Vestry’s conduct of business is that of informal and diffuse means of communication with officers responsible for implementing its directives, who themselves operated only loosely in tandem with Vestry meetings. Even so, Longtown Vestry coped at an impressive level of competence, as will be seen in the course of this study. For now, we will turn to more detail of Vestry participation.
Table 1 gives the names of landholders who were in any way recorded as taking part in Vestry business over the 21 year period, whether or not they attended meetings. For some, their property and rates assessment has been identified in two contemporary Rates Books, one from 1834, and the other from 1839 which gives additional information about the size of holdings. Some of the names can be correlated with properties in the Tithe Survey of 1840 or the Census of 1841, but information from these sources has not been included in Table 1, to avoid the possibility of conflating persons with the same name. The Longtown Rates Books are likely to be the most accurate match of properties and Vestry members as they list only the properties liable for rates.
On attendance, Table 1 has been divided into four columns covering 5 years each (6 years in the last column), which exemplifies the points made above, that persons on the panel of nominations for Overseer were not necessarily actively involved in the Vestry, nor on the whole did Overseers or Surveyors feel obliged to attend meetings. Four women who were nominated for Overseer from 1829 were not appointed, nor did they attend meetings. The appearance and disappearance of individuals within each 5 year block reflects the ebb and flow of generations as well as persons who lived throughout the time span. The date given for Churchwardens indicates a date their office is noted in the Minutes or other documents, not necessarily the date they were appointed which may not be recorded.
| Table 1. Longtown Vestry participants: collated information on property, duties and attendance |
| ALL participants & duty at some time | PROPERTY | ATTENDANCES |
| P=Panel [3] | 1839 Rates Book | Tenant or | Acres | Rateable value | 1820- | 1825- | 1820-1834 | 1835-1840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Benjamin Titley (P) | Trelandon |
|
|
| 15 | 8 | 6 | - |
| Benjamin Watkins |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| Charles Proberts | Vicarage | - | 1a | £10 | - | - | - | 3 |
| Daniel Williams (P) | B& L Brynn | O | 124a | £62 | - | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| David Griffiths |
|
|
|
| 5 | 1 | - | - |
| David Gwillim |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| David Watkins | B& L Brooks farm | T | 160a | £84 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 4 |
| Edward Farr | House & garden | O | - | £3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Edward Merrick (P) | B& L Groves | O | 75a | £75 | 15 | 8 | 6 | 1 |
| Edwin Prosser (P) | B& L Cwm Coched | O | 120a | £90 | - | - | 4 | - |
| Elizabeth Parry (p) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| George Addis (P) | B& L Lower House | T | 120a | £75 | 6 | 1 | - | 4 |
| George Harris | B& L Upper Ponthendry | T | 30a | £30 | - | - | - | 1 |
| George Williams |
|
|
|
| 1 | 9 | - | - |
| Henry Harris | Lands Rencurron | O | 18a | £10 | 28 | 12 | 2 | 11 |
| Henry Thomas Harris | B& L Oldcourt | T | 210a | £110 | - | - | - | 1 |
| Howell Nicholls | Barn & Lands Penpasound | O | 18a | £16 | 3 | - | 2 | - |
| Isaac Titley | Longtown |
|
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
| James Farr | B& L Bakerstump | T | 116a | £56 | - | - | - | 1 |
| James Hoddell | Barns & Land | O | 56a | £28 | 34 | 20 | 25 | 8 |
| James Howell |
|
|
|
| 1 | - | - | - |
| James Hughes |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| James Jenkins Griffiths |
|
|
|
| 7 | 12 | 4 | - |
| James Johnson (P,Ov) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| James Parry (C) | B& L Ruthland | T | 48a | £30 | - | - | - | 1 |
| James Phillips |
|
|
|
| - | - | 3 | - |
| James Pitt Jr |
|
|
|
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| James Powell | B& L Penarewl | O | 22a | £11 | - | 3 | 8 | - |
| James Walter (P) | Mill House & lands Pontannas | O | 1a | £18 | - | - | - | 1 |
| James Williams | B& L Lower Ponthendry | T | 65a | £46 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 4 |
| John Aubrey Davies |
|
|
|
| - | - | 2 | - |
| John Davies | B& L Bryn | T | 178a | £82 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 4 |
| John Dukes (S) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| John Farr |
|
|
|
| - | - | 3 | - |
| John Griffiths (P) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| John Gwillim | (Wayne) |
|
|
| - | 7 | 19 | 3 |
| John Hale (P,S) | B& L Lannwonog | T | 140a | £70 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
| John Hughes (C) |
|
|
|
| - | 1 | 1 | - |
| John Jones (S) | B& L [?Glean] lands | T | 30a | £25 | - | - | 1 | - |
| John Lewis (P) | B& L Cwm Bach | T | 30a | £30 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| John Matthews (P) | (Little Bilbo) |
|
|
| 2 | 4 | - | - |
| John Parry (S) |
|
|
|
| 1 | 1 | - | - |
| John Phillips (P, S) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| John Powell (P) | B& L Top of Meascoat | O | 4a | £8 | 1 | - | - | - |
| John Price /Cwm Coched (P, Ov) |
|
|
|
| ? | ? | ? | ? |
| John Price/Wayne | (Moody) |
|
|
| 12 | 4 | 2 | 5 |
| John Prosser | B& L Lower Werndee | T | 147a | £80 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| John Rogers | B& L Malthouse | O | 6a | £16 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 3 |
| John Watkins | B& L Moniferdin | T | 150a | £66 | - | - | - | 1 |
| John Williams | B& L Bilboa | T | 88a | £50 | 3 | - | - | - |
| Joseph Prosser | B& L part of Cwm | T | 34a | £15 | 1 | - | - | - |
| Peter Yeomans (S) | B& L Merdee | O | 130a | £60 | 1 | - | - | - |
| Philip Jones | (Merdee) |
|
|
| 1 | - | - | - |
| Philip Morgan |
|
|
|
| 1 | - | - | - |
| Richard Barrell |
|
|
|
| 2 | - | - | - |
| Richard Morgan (P) | Pontannas |
|
|
| 2 | - | - | - |
| Sam Jones |
|
|
|
| 6 | 2 | - | - |
| Samuel Griffiths (P) | B& L Garn | T | 76a | £28 | - | - | - | - |
| Samuel Gwillim (S) |
|
|
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
| Samuel Johnson |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| Samuel Lewis (P) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| Sarah Davis (P) | Hunthouse |
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| Sarah Hughes (P) | House & garden Longtown | T | - | £2 | - | - | - | - |
| Sarah Phillips (P) | Great Hunthouse | T | 144a | £58 | - | - | - | - |
| Thomas Jones (P) | B& L Pontannas | T | 40a | £30 | - | - | - | - |
| Thomas Lewis |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | 1 |
| Thomas Lilwall |
|
|
|
| - | 1 | - | - |
| Thomas Morgan |
|
|
|
| 2 | 2 | - | - |
| Thomas Munkley |
|
|
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
| Thomas Parry (C) | B& L Sun Inn | T | 10a | £13 | - | 1 | - | 6 |
| Thomas Penry | B& L New Inn | O | 17a | £40 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Thomas Price (CW 1840) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | 2 |
| Thomas Williams |
|
|
|
| 8 | 12 | - | - |
| William Davies (P) | (Penadree) |
|
|
| - | - | 15 | 1 |
| William George (P, Ov) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| William Gilbert | Hunthouse |
|
|
| - | - | 2 | - |
| William Grunnow | B& L Trewern | T | 80a | £55 | - | - | 1 | 1 |
| William Gwillim (P) | B& L Cwm Dulas | T | 123a | £80 | - | - | 4 | - |
| William Harris (P) |
|
|
|
| - | - | - | - |
| William Hoddell | B& L Gridole | T | 283a | £122 | - | - | 7 | - |
| William Lewis | House & garden | T | [blank] | [blank] | 1 | - | - | - |
| William Morgan |
|
|
|
| 8 | - | - | - |
| William Paine |
|
|
|
| 1 | - | - | - |
| William Phillips | B& L Far House | T | 22a | £11 | 1 | - | - | - |
| William Powell |
|
|
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
| William Prichard | B& L Colebrook | T | 60a | £33 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| William Rogers (P) | B& L Cwm | T | 56a | £36 | - | - | 1 | 1 |
| William Watkins (S) | B& L Werndee | O | 140a | £70 | 1 | 3 | 1 | - |
| William Williams | B& L Ty Mawr | T | 110a | £65 | 9 | 3 | 13 | 9 |
The collection of rates
Poor Rate levies were noted in a most erratic way, a puzzling feature of the Minutes. From eight levies authorised in 1820 and reducing yearly to three in 1825, no further levies are noted until one in 1835 and in 1837. The rate set was either sixpence or a shilling in the pound, based on the rateable value of the property. It may be that authorisation for levies came to be recorded in a separate rates book and not noted in the Minutes, though this is a speculation: the earliest surviving rates account book for Longtown is 1834, the year of the New Poor Law, from then on showing that rates were apparently levied at irregular intervals several times a year. Whatever the reason, it seems that landholders were beset with ad hoc rate demands which must have made the Overseer’s job as rates collector extremely fraught, to say the least. Something of the difficulties comes across in these entries:
|
| - We order the Present Overseers to apply to the Magistrate to compel the Persons to pay the Taxes due from them in the acct of David Watkins and Thomas Williams the late Overseers. June 1821 |
Complaints about the level of assessments led to a review in 1824, when twenty landholders had their rateable values reduced. Another review in 1837 was a ‘general survey’ with a requirement for landholders to supply rent receipts or other documents. There were also difficulties with arrears, recorded in 1829 for three landholders. In 1838 the Vestry ordered an inspection of the accounts by a committee of ten, apparently in response to a directive from the Magistrates.
These few examples point to inherent conflicts of interests for the Vestry: as ratepayers themselves, as collector of taxes among their colleagues and neighbours, and as providers of Poor Relief.
Outdoor Relief
The Minutes do not make any reference to Dore Workhouse, opened in 1839, and it seems that all provision up to 1840 was outdoor relief. However, the Minutes do show marked differences in the kind of outdoor relief at around the time of the New Poor Law, almost certainly in response to its requirements for greater stringency.
This section will look at the kinds of provision made to individuals and families. The measures decided on at Vestry meetings seem at first glance seem to lack a coherent order. No agenda is given and items seem to be noted down as they came to mind in discussion. Single cases of need may be noted, or identiical kinds of provisions for a number of people may be clumped together at one meeting and not mentioned again for a long period of time. On closer scrutiny, however, an invisible but fairly robust structure to the kind of help given can be seen. Most of the allocations fall into four main groupings: goods or money to pay for specified uses; occasional payments in money for unspecified uses; ongoing weekly payments; and lastly the provision of work. Although these groupings impose an artificial order on the flow of Vestry records they do provide a handle on the scope of the Vestry’s provisions to the poor. Examples will be given here for each grouping: a full transcription of outdoor relief is a lengthy document which can be found elsewhere on this website. [Click here to see]
The main groupings are shown in Table 2, where the number of instances in each group is given in 5-yearly bands. This gives only a rough indication of help given: the Vestry Minutes may not record all the provisions actually made as Overseers probably made on-the-spot allocations not recorded in the Minutes. The table does, however, show the range of support given and some of the concerns of the Vestry at particular times. The figures in Table 2 do not refer to persons, but to the number of times help was given within a particular category to indicate the relative proportions of different kinds of help.
| TABLE 2. |
|
| 1820-24 | 1825-29 | 1830-34 | 1835-40 |
| Number of meetings at which allocations were made | 29 | 19 | 27 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Number of instances allocated (not persons): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Goods & money for specified uses |
|
|
|
|
| Staples | 55 | 39 | 66 | 7 |
| House rent or lodging | 21 | 13 | 24 | 1 |
| Care | ?10 | ?4 | ?15 | ?6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Occasional money for unspecified use | 48 | 26 | 27 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ongoing weekly pay | 20 | 14 | 7 | 5 |
| Weekly pay reduced/stopped | 53 | 10 | 13 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Work |
|
|
|
|
| Able-bodied men | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Children | 0 | 1 | 40 | 16 |
The marked reduction after 1835 of staples, house rent or lodgings, and money whether occasional or regular payments, was undoubtedly due to restrictions on outdoor relief imposed by the New Poor Law. The question marks regarding care indicate a best guess for the old, infirm and disabled, as distinct from accommodation for children working as ‘apprentices’. It is not possible to calculate the number of men given work. The enormous increase in child labour from 1830 will be discussed below.
Goods and money for specified uses
Goods and money are here taken to be the direct supply of staples such as food and clothing; cash for specified purposes such as house rent or lodgings; and care for the old, sick or disabled
Staples were often provided in kind: the food mentioned was flour, wheat or potatoes, and clothing was usually shirts, ‘shifts’ and shoes. Blankets also appear. Sometimes cloth, or even ‘hurds’ for spinning were provided (hurds being coarse fibres of flax). Fuel was provided from time to time, as ‘firing’ (presumably firewood) and once as coal. All show in graphic detail the reality of desperate poverty. A few examples:
|
| - We allow William Prichard 5/- for fireing and half a bushall of wheat as Relief. Janurary 1822 |
House rent and lodgings. A regular rent allowance was provided for some, and was sometimes paid directly to the landlord. Rent arrears were covered on an occasional basis, and may have been prompted as much in the interests of landlords as of the needy. The Vestry intervened where housing costs were thought too high, and other entries confirm the Vestry’s use of designated lodging houses for paupers, though there is no indication of where they were located. The examples below illustrate these points.
|
| - We order the overseers to pay the houserent of William Pritchard to Philip Jones being £2/12/6 due May 1821. May 1821 |
Care. Support was given for the old, sick or disabled who were typically cared for in their own homes or with relatives. Doctors bills were sometimes paid, and some provision of medicine and special appliances is noted. Only two funerals are noted. Some examples:
|
| - We agree to allow George Williams of the Township of Craswall 8s per week for 6 weeks for the keep of Mary Williams now a Lunatic at Peterchurch from the time she goes to him. December 1820 |
Occasional money for unspecified use
One-off payments for unspecified use, the second most frequent kind of help, were generally referred to as ‘relief’. The amount given was usually from 2/6d to 5/-. Relief involved no long term commitment and represents a highly flexible response to immediate needs. Many individuals received relief only once or twice in the entire time span and had no other kind of support from the Vestry, which underscores its use as emergency aid. Some examples:
|
| - We relieve James Jones 3/-. November 1821 |
Weekly pay and the reduction/stopping of weekly pay
Weekly pay was awarded far less than goods or occasional relief. Usually there was no set duration, and weekly pay was subject to a start-stop policy of reducing or stopping it altogether: piecemeal reductions would explain why the figure of reductions is greater than the figure for allocations in two time bands. These fluctuations may reflect close monitoring of particular circumstances such as a temporary lack of work or illness. However, it may also reflect the amount of cash available in the Poor Rate funds, as is suggested in a wholesale lowering of pay in 1822 when a reduction was ordered for 28 people at one meeting. The amount of weekly pay was generally between 2/6 and 5/-, and was probably determined by size of family among other factors known to the Vestry. When a reduction was made, it was usually in the order of 6d or 1/-. For some individuals a revision of weekly pay does not square up with a previous figure given in the minutes, which tends to confirm that Overseers exercised their own judgment in some cases. A very few individuals were allocated goods and relief from time to time in addition to weekly pay. Some were probably a small core of severely disadvantaged people unable to cope independently. Greater generosity in other cases may reflect the needs of children in client families. Examples illustrate these points:
|
| - We lower the pay of Edward Farr from 3/- to 2/-. March 1821 |
Work
Able-bodied men. Under the Old Poor Law, Vestries were encouraged to provide work for able-bodied men. There are a few references to the Vestry taking a proactive role by employing men on road building and maintenance. The number of individuals in the workforce is not known, nor is it clear whether all were receiving Poor Relief. In only two instances is a workman named – John Jones and John Johnson whose names crop up elsewhere in a number of Vestry allocations of help. As this was casual work, it seems likely that most would not have been employed elsewhere. There is an instance of compensation being paid for damage to a property from stone hauling, suggesting that liability to landholders was considered an appropriate use of the poor rates.
|
| - We order the Surveyors of the Highways not to pay the men working on the Highways any more than Three Shillings per week, or Sixpence per day. March 1821 |
Children. At the time, the term ‘apprenticeship’ could refer to an indentured contract for learning a trade, but was often a euphemism for unskilled child labour at ages as young as seven or eight. In Longtown, the Vestry Minutes refer to two apprenticeships which involved training for a trade.
|
| - We allow Charles Davies two pounds as relief provided his daughter is settled in hur place and her Indenture sinde. September 1820 |
Otherwise, the Minutes suggest that ‘apprenticeship’ was a gloss for child labour:
|
| - We order the Overseers to apprentice out on the Landholders all the poor children that are in age to apprentice that are troublesome to the said Township. May 1821 |
At the time, child labour was an accepted practice and in the rural economy of Longtown would have been almost entirely working for farmers, girls doing housework and boys farmwork. In Table 2, the last two time bands show an enormous increase in the extent of child labour, which can be identified by a number of hints in these examples
|
| - We allow James Hoddell, Tekennell 40/- for clothing James Simmons Daughter. May 1830 |
Terms such as ‘keep and clothing’ or ‘maintenance and clothing’, in nearly every case was in the household of a landholder and participant in the Vestry, suggesting a role as servant. The directives were made between April and June, mostly in May which was the conventional time for hiring labour with contracts for a year. Another telling clue is the indication of children, such as ‘Henry Price’s daughter’ or ‘Elizabeth Cook’s son’. The landholders offering placements received payment in the order of £1/10/- for a year which seems to have been primarily for clothing, effectively a subsidy from the Poor Rate with the benefit of unpaid labour. However, self interest may not have been the only motive; a degree of altruism may lay behind this huge increase in child labour, to help poor families who would be faced with the workhouse when the New Poor Law came into operation. This interpretation gains strength from figures for the employment of children in Minutes of different years, showing very little take-up by landholders in the 1820s, whereas in the 1830s there was a sudden and dramatic increase. The figures for years with a record of child labour are as follows:
| Table 3. Instances of child labour by year of placement |
| 1825 | 1826 | 1829 | 1830 | 1831 | 1832 | 1833 | 1834 | 1835 | 1836 |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 18 | 13 | 10 | 16 | 3 |
The increase from 1830 coincides with fiercely argued national debates about impending changes to the Poor Law, peaking in 1832 when a Royal Commission on the Poor Law was set up. The Commission reported in 1834, the same year that the Poor Law Amendment Act endorsed its recommendations, requiring children under the age of 16 to enter the workhouse with a parent or parents when families were denied outdoor relief. It looks as though the Vestry was preparing for this eventuality by placing children in local households, probably in part to protect them, and in part to reduce the cost to their families of living at home. One of the children involved is almost certainly identified in the 1841 census: Caroline Price, who had three one-year contracts from 1832 to 1834, appears as a ‘female servant’ in Longtown, aged fifteen. She therefore would have started working at age nine. Another vignette is suggested by a curious entry, ‘We allow John Stephens the sum of seven pounds to go to America’. This entry comes in the middle of a list of children being parcelled out to households, and occurs just above such a placement for Mary Stephens, which suggests a brother and sister whose futures were being decided. If so, might John Stephens have been a bright lad who had the Vestry’s blessing to seek a better life abroad, or was he a trouble-maker well despatched elsewhere?
Settlement Issues
The sharp decline in outdoor relief (other than through child labour) after 1834 can certainly be attributed to the New Poor Law. This comes out more clearly in Table 4 giving the percentage of outdoor relief in relation to the population of Longtown as a whole. A head count of individuals includes members of families receiving help on different occasions (such as Wiiliam Cook, William Cook’s wife and William Cook’s boy) and does not take account of possible same names (two or three are fairly certain). However, the head count does give a rough idea of the percentage of the population receiving outdoor relief over the 21 years. A population of 938 in Longtown in the 1831 census is used as an approximate base figure.
| TABLE 4. |
|
| 1820-24 | 1825-29 | 1830-34 | 1835-40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Number of named individuals | 94 | 72 | 107 | 33 |
| Population based on 1831 census = 938 |
|
|
|
|
| Percentage of the population: |
|
|
|
|
| In each time band | 9.9% | 7.7% | 11.4% | 3.5% |
| Average per year | 2% | 1.5% | 2.3% | 0.6% |
Broadly speaking, it seems that the percentage of the poor receiving outdoor relief in Longtown was in the region of 2% per year up to 1834, but after that year declined to under 1%. The Minutes make very few references to resettlement, but the legal power to remove paupers was rigorously exercised for decades after the New Poor Law imposed draconian cuts in outdoor relief.
Settlement laws from 1662 allowed the removal of persons from their parish of ‘residence’ to their parish of ‘settlement’. A right to settlement could be determined in various ways: by the parish of birth; continuous residence for more than five years; having a contract for work for a year; renting property worth more than £10; marrying a settled resident; previously receiving poor relief in that parish; or by having served a seven year apprenticeship. Removal orders from the 1840s transcribed elsewhere on this website provide case histories of persons subjected to ‘examinations’ as to their place of legal settlement when they became chargeable to the rates. [Click here to see.]
For those without settlement rights, the Vestry minutes illustrate the to and fro between parishes in divesting themselves of persons needing poor relief, some being sent back to Longtown and others removed from Longtown. The process involved a legally sworn examination of the circumstances, and authorisation by two Justices of the Peace. These instances show how the funding of poor relief on a parish by parish basis could affect the free movement of people even between adjacent parishes[4] .
|
| - We order the Overseers to take Kate Powell to sware her child. We order the Overseers to take Elizabeth Jones to sware her Settlement and to move her to her parish. September 1820 |
A perambulation of the boundary arranged by the Vestry underscores the significance of parish boundaries for settlement rights. The Vestry is here ensuring that local residents know the exact perimeter of Longtown - by hedge, field, stream, lane and any other landmark:
|
| Resolved that Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday the 20th , 21st and 23rd days of the present month, are fixed for Perambulating the Boundary of the Township of Longtown, and that Notices be affixed upon the Church Door of the several Parishes and Townships adjoining Longtown. November 1839 |
OTHER VESTRY INITIATIVES RELATING TO THE POOR LAW
Bastard children and deserting fathers
The Vestry chased up payment from deserting fathers whose offspring, whether legitimate or not, were or were liable to be a burden on the rates. A voluntary rate specifically for this purpose, organised by the Vicar, suggests an initiative with moral underpinning beyond normal requirements:
|
| - We agree to give up the Order Of Filiation made on Samuel Griffiths and Jane Prichard for their Bastard Child on condition that Edward Prichard and James Prichard do give their Bond to Indemnify the Township of Longtown from all and Every expence that may arise from the maintenance of the said Child and we do agree that the Churchwardens and Overseers do discharge the said Samuel Griffiths and Jane Prichard from the said Child or the Filiation made by the Magistrates from the [ma..] of the said Child for the consideration of the sum of ten pounds paid into the hands of the Churchwarden or Overseers of the Poor for the expence already expended. Together with Bond as aforesaid. September 1821 |
Local charities[5]
Several major players in the Vestry were proactive in efforts to ensure that charities which had been set up in perpetuity were functioning. On one occasion, the Minutes note an attempt to reinstate one that had become defunct, Pitt’s Charity. Other records show an earlier involvement of Vestry members in successfully reinstating two others: Lewis Gilbert’s Charity in 1814-15; and Maddock’s Charity in 1810.
Lewis Gilbert’s Charity . Set up by a bequest in 1643 to provide rental income from 12 acres of land in Longtown, the charity had lapsed and the property was let for private profit until a petition by the Churchwardens and others [6] in 1814 led to its restoration. It provided 40 shillings a year to seven ‘among the most aged and necessitous poor belonging to the township who do not receive weekly pay, in shares proportioned to the number in each family’. The allocations were made on St Thomas’s Day, December 21st each year.
Powell’s Charity. Interest on a mortgaged property in Longtown provided £4/10/9d per year for distribution among the poor and was administered at the same time and in the same way as Gilbert’s charity.
Maddock’s Charity was a bequest left by Oliver Maddock 1716 for ‘teaching such poor children whose parents were not of ability, to read English well, say their Catechism, and to write and cast accompts’. An income from rents on Penydre Farm in Longtown was to provide £4 per year for teaching ten children in Longtown, and lesser amounts for education in Bacton and Abbey Dore. There is no evidence that school premises were set up in Longtown before 1810, when the Churchwardens and others, among whom again there were later Vestry participants, took the lead in arranging for the west end of Longtown Chapel to be adapted as a schoolroom[7] .
Pitt’s charity , from a bequest by William Pitt in 1742 of income from a property called Nyaddvach in Longtown, was divided between Longtown and Michaelchurch Escley. It survived until 1772 when a descendant, James Pitt, recovered possession. After a successful prosecution and award in 1787 it again lapsed after two or three years, and in 1831 the Vestry resolved to make enquiries. In this case the outcome was unsuccessful.
|
| - We the Inhabitants and Landholders present...do order to Overseers or one of then to apply to the Consistory Court of Brecon for a Copy of the Will of the late William Pitt of Lindee in the said Township bequeathing a certain sum of money to be annually paid for the use of the Poor of the said Township from Lands and premises called Nyadd vach in the said Township which sum or sums of money are illegally withheld by the present Occupier of the said premises James Pitt. And also we order the Overseers of the poor to apply to the Executors of Lacon Lambe Esq for an Award made by him under an order of nisi prius Awarding the said money for the use of the poore of the said Township and the expences of obtaining the aforesaid Documents to be paid out of the poors rate of the said Township. January 1831 |
In conclusion, some underlying issues in the Longtown Vestry Minutes can be considered, bearing in mind that the social context at that time was different from now and should be understood in its own terms.
- The Vestry Minutes give us a one-sided view of poverty. The poor are presented as passive recipients, not active players in their destiny. Poverty was endemic in rural communities and we do not see those among the poor who managed within limited means or succeeded in bettering their lot. Recourse to the Vestry would have been a last resort, as it carried the stigma of being a pauper. We should remember that in the background were family networks of support. Nonconformism, rapidly expanding in rural areas at this time, would have provided mutual help for many. There were some, though limited, opportunities for education from private charity. Emigration was an option, to the mines in South Wales, industrial cities, or abroad. The poor of Longtown seen through the Vestry’s eyes were those who for any number of reasons were unable to help themselves.
- Funding for poor relief was entirely parish based, which under the Old Poor Law meant that resources could be used in a flexible way, and the level of rates adjusted according to the amount of tax landholders would tolerate. While the poor rate continued to be parish based under the New Poor Law, the parish no longer had the same autonomy over its use. The new tier of administration, the Poor Law Union, required a contribution from the parish for the workhouse. A severe reduction of outdoor relief resulted in the parish expending a great deal of time, effort and money on the bureaucracy of resettlement orders, both to shift paupers out of the parish and to resist resettlement in Longtown from elsewhere. These factors diverted funds away from the earlier and more cost effective measures which allowed the needy to continue living in their homes.
- The demands made on the Vestry for public service under the Old Poor Law seem extraordinary today. In particular, the duties of the Overseers come across as an enormous burden of responsibility taken on with apparent reluctance by people with varying aptitude for the job. As both collectors of the rates and dispensers of poor relief they were exposed to extremely difficult encounters on each side with no evidence of guidelines for their conduct. It seems likely that poor relief was more or less generous depending on the reputation of the recipient and the personality of serving Overseers at any one time. The Overseers were in a position of power, effectively without a monitor of fairness and probity other than public opinion. Current attitudes would have distinguished between the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor, no doubt tempered by 19th century pietism. Such attitudes can be expected as the checks and balances for standards acceptable to the Vestry. The New Poor Law drastically reduced the role of Overseers which was largely taken over by a Relieving Officer, a full time officer for groups of parishes in the Poor Law Union, thus introducing a paid professional working at parish level[8] .
- Finally, the Minutes give a strong impression of the Vestry’s conformity to the law. Members would have been aware of the huge political storm enveloping the Poor Law, and would have recognised how ill-suited the New Poor Law was to a remote, sparsely populated rural area. Yet it complied with statutory duties and whatever its members had to say about the bigger picture is left unrecorded. It sought to ensure that landholders did pay up, however grudgingly, and to provide for the destitute within the constraints placed upon its choices. There is no sign of gross mismanagement in these functions, but rather positive evidence of an ongoing acceptance of civic duty. All in all, the Vestry portrays itself as a pragmatic and dependable custodian of the Poor Law.
References:
Minutes of Longtown Vestry (1820-1840): Herefordshire Record office G71/5
Elliott, Nancy (1986) Dore Workhouse in Victorian Times . Workers Educational Association, Ewyas Harold and District branch. [ Click here to see]
Englander, David (1998) Poverty and Poor Law Reform in 19th Century Britain, 1834-1914: From Chadwick to Booth . Longman, London
Higginbotham , Peter (nd) The Workhouse . Website [Click here for Dore Poor Law Union]
Landau, Norma (1995) ‘Who was subjected to the Laws of Settlement?’, Agricultural History Review , 43,II, 139-159 [Click here to see]
Morrill, Sylvia A (1974) ‘Poor Law in Hereford 1836 – 1851’, Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists Field Club Vol XLI Pt II, 239-252
Powell, John (2008) Hard Times in Herefordshire: the effects of the workhouse and the New Poor Law . Logaston Press, Almeley
[1] The shopkeepers were Henry Harris and William Morgan; the publicans were Thomas Parry of the Sun Inn and Thomas Penry of the New Inn.
[2] The six subdistricts were Longtown Lower Division, Longtown Upper Division, Rhedunnog Vawr, Cwmbullog, Cwm Bach and Hunthouse.
[3] Panel = Named in panel of nominations for Overseer (whether or not appointed)
[4] Parish based funding continued despite massive public protest until 1865 when the Union Chargeability Act established the pooling of rates within a Poor Law Union, and at the same time gave settlement rights after one year of residence.
[5] Reports of the Charity Commissioners 1815-1839: Longtown [Click here to see]
[6] HRO AA38/1-2 [Click here to see]. The petitioners were Henry Harris, James Jenkins Griffiths, William Morgan, James Hoddell and John Gwillim, all of whom were active Vestry members at some time in the period covered by the Vestry Minutes.
[7] HRO G/71/1 Clodock Parish Minutes 1798-1846.
[8] John Price of Clodock was appointed Relieving Officer for one of three districts in the Dore Union, District 1 also called the Longtown district, which included 11 local parishes. The identity of this John Price has not yet been established, as there were at least two contemporaries with this name. According to Nancy Elliot ‘Mr Price of Clodock served his District for over thirty years and his son was chosen by a large majority of the Board...to follow him’
Ref: nw_lon_1022