|
OUT RELIEF IN THE HEADINGTON POOR LAW UNION, 1841 - 1873
Out door relief has always been something of a sore point in the annals of the running of the poor law. Many arguments during the pre-1834 discussions centred on the high costs of the allowance systems which had grown up over the preceding years so did the new Act cut the cost of outdoor relief?. Much research has been done now that has shown that the harsh terms of the Act were not always applied and that the reality was of much laxity. Certainly the central authorities and Parliament tried hard to establish firmer controls over the provision of relief outside the workhouse through a series of Acts and Orders. In this particular study we shall examine the minute books of one particular Union during the critical period, 1841 to 1874, in an attempt to see what was the reality of outdoor relief and what constraints, if any, were imposed. The union under review is the Oxfordshire Union of Headington, some 24 mainly rural parishes.
The Amendment Act in 1834 tried to ensure that all able-bodied paupers were relieved within the confines of the workhouses, which the newly authorised Unions of Parishes were to build. As the aim of this was to dissuade the able bodied "sponging" on the rates the conditions in the workhouse were to be to less than those which the lowest paid labourer in work could expect to enjoy; the notorious principle of "less eligibility". In fact the Act recognised that it would not always be possible to provide for such discrimination and left a loophole in Article 52 through which the Guardian might wriggle if they wished and were determined.
"Provided always that, in case the overseers or guardians of any parish or union to which such orders or regulations shall be addressed or directed shall,.............be of the opinion that the application and enforcement of such orders or regulations, ........... would be inexpedient, it shall be lawful for such overseers or guardians to delay the operation of such orders or regulations,... for any period not exceeding the space of thirty days,....;Provided also, that in case the overseers or guardians of any parish or union in which such orders or regulations shall be in force shall depart from them ......in any particular instance or instances of emergency, and shall within fifteen days... report the same ... to the said commissioners, and the said commissioners shall approve such departure, .....shall not be unlawful or subject to be disallowed."
(1)
and Digby records the comment by the Inspector for the Oxfordshire area saying in 1841 that the regulations "admit of the granting of outdoor relief under almost every contingent that can befall a man and his family".(2) Such a situation as envisaged by the Act appears to have been met in October 1841 when two pounds were given to a William Sparrow and approval of the Poor Law Commissioners sought after the event. Approval was forth coming and so the payment was a fait accompli.(3)
However the Poor Law Commissions and their successors did make their attitude to the application of the law clear in correspondence with the Guardians. As late as September 1861 members of the Poor Law Board were expressing concern at the payment of four shillings (20 pence) per week to a child. They also withheld approval of action taken on occasion as in the case of Eliza Winter who, as a single parent in August of 1842, was given outrelief for herself and her child. When informed of the circumstances the commissioners only sanctioned relief by putting the child into the workhouse.(4)
The commissioners were, of course, situated in London and tried very hard to operate the letter of the law with out the benefit of local knowledge. This no doubt accounts for the local willingness to try and use loop-holes in the law or just to apply their own views. It also helps to explain the resulting attempts by the commissioners and their successors to coerce or persuade, through regulations and orders, the guardians to be as firm as the law intended. There were, however, central government officials who were able to apply local knowledge, the Inspectors who checked regularly. These were sometimes men with local connections: the last one of our period was the son of a local Member of Parliament.
There was little in the minutes to indicate the views of the early inspectors to the way in which the rules on outdoor relief were applied. They appear to have been reasonably tolerant from the lack of any criticism and the cordial relations, which seem to have prevailed. The same cannot be said of the last, Mr Henley, who seems to have had very firm views on the conduct of the regulations. In February 1871 he attended a meeting of the Board and recommended that there should be much stricter application of the workhouse test and complained that the Headington Union was not as strict as the other unions in his district. He quoted 1 to 15 as being the ratio of outdoor relief recipients to paupers within the Union while Faringdon was only 1 to 35. A year later he appears to be criticising the method of making the actual payments of outdoor relief when he recommends that the relief should be collected by the paupers personally unless too ill in which case the Relieving Officer should deliver it himself.(5) This attitude was consistent with those he expressed else where in his districts. In the Bletchington District of the Bicester Union the relieving officer complained that he was hard pressed to fulfil his duties because there had been an increase of fifty percent in the applications for medical relief since the Inspector's new conditions and it proved impossible to cope using the baker’s van as he had traditionally done.
(6))
The Guardians were the local people who had the ultimate responsibility to administer the law. They were locally elected for each parish and had a dual duty; to ensure that genuine paupers were helped within the law and to protect the interests of the ratepayers who elected them. In theory the Guardians were required to authorise all payments and relief could only be supplied on the receipt of an order issued by the relieving officer and endorsed by the guardians. In practice the endorsement was a formality as there was little chance that the individual guardians were ever likely to know all the circumstances of all applicants; they paid the officers to do that part of the work. Applicants could attend the weekly, later fortnightly, meetings of the Board, and there were some who did, but in the main the applications were direct to the relieving officer who made the order, or not, according to his viewing of the circumstances of the individual. There were also the church-wardens and parish overseers of the poor who had been traditionally the poor law officers from the Elizabethan period of codified relief and there were instances where the poor of the parish would approach these, probably feeling that they would be more sympathetic. When this occurred there was a chance of conflict with the guardians who were extremely jealous of their position and authority. In Sept. 1842 the Medical Officer for the Headington district was told not to accept an order from the churchwarden of St. Clements and wrote to Mr James, the churchwarden concerned, that they were surprised ".....at an order having been given." A similar instance arose in Nov 1852 when the medical officer of Wheatley district complained that the overseer for Holton had given him a medical order for the wife of a pauper, which the Guardians decided, was not necessary.
In general, as has been stated, the guardians were willing to accept that the relieving officers' judgement of individual cases was to be trusted and went along with their recommendations, however, they did have their responsibilities and from time to time exercised their authority over the officers. In May of 1852 Mr Waine, the relieving officer for the Wheatley District was reprimanded after Eliza Williams of Wheatley had complained that he had twice withheld money due to her because she owed money to his son. In this case the officer was also made to repay one shilling and six-pence. Earlier in October 1847 the Relieving Officer for Headington District was censured for refusing relief to Eliza Giles on a second application to him. Waine was in trouble again in 1867 for incivility towards one of the Guardians when he was reported as having said "I shall take no notice of what Mr. Herman says I shall pay the relief as long as I think proper."(7)
The Guardians themselves were reasonable men on the whole and the evidence shows that they were reasonably compassionate in their treatment of paupers. It might be naive to take the view offered in the letter of resignation of one of the medical Officers, Dr. Cogan, when he said that he wished
".....to express my grateful thanks to the Chairman and gentlemen of the Board, who have, by their constant liberality to the patients under my care contributed so largely to their comfort and the success of my treatment,...."
(8)
as being a wholly accurate view, but there is no doubt that they were concerned about the circumstances and welfare of the genuine applicants. In January 1847 one of the Guardians intended that they should consider increasing the amounts paid to "permanent paupers" because of high prices. Later in May of 1873 it was proposed by Mr Parsons that the amount for the aged and infirm should be increased by six-pence where guardians recommended. The first suggestion was lost on a vote, 5 to 11, but the much later one was passed after an amendment which would have made the increase payable to all in receipt of relief whether they lived with relatives or paid rent was withdrawn.
By the end of the period under consideration this freer attitude was also evident in relation to boarding out children. In May of 1873 it was agreed that a child should be moved out of the workhouse school and boarded at three shillings and six-pence a week, probably a less costly method of giving relief. As it turned out they discovered that, what ever their reasons, such an action would not be legal because the regulations required approval of the Local Government Board and this was unlikely to be forthcoming as the child was not orphaned, illegitimate nor deserted by parents.
The concern for the poor on outrelief extended beyond the immediate level of whether they were entitled or not but also to how that relief was to be delivered. In March 1872 it was decided that relief should be given to Summertown paupers locally rather than at the pay table in St.Giles so saving them from a long walk. They also showed concern for the plight of paupers who had to stand about in poor weather; the baker was told in January 1856 to be more prompt after a late delivery. The quality of the bread supplied also caused concern on occasion with several instances of poor quality bread being supplied. The medical officers and the relieving officers all came in for criticism for alleged neglect of paupers from time to time.(9)
Of course the Guardians did not always allow claims. They were happy to help those who appeared in need of assistance but they considered the circumstances and frequently turned down applicants. Usually the evidence of such refusal is contained in references to complaints, which had been transmitted from the central authority that received them in the first instance. One was from a Mr Cox of White Cross Green because the Board had refused to relieve the widow Cox of Studley (his mother?). Another forwarded by the Poor Law Board had been from a local clergyman, Reverend Tyndale of Holton, because of refusal to help two of his parishioners while a complaint from a mother was because the guardians had not given an allowance of clothing for her daughter. They also disallowed the mutton and extras which Dr. Cogan had given to Thomas Parsons and Francis Munt "........not considering that such additional articles should be provided out of the rates."(10) They also applied the workhouse test as required by law when they felt certain that there was reason for denying outrelief; in May 1856 the case of Thomas Younger was being reconsidered, "..... to test the destitute condition of the family by an offer of admission to the workhouse."((11)
Sometimes the paupers were unfortunate in being the victims of the problems of administration. When this happened the benevolent attitudes of the guardians gave way to the more realistic considerations of making the whole system work. One such example was when those paupers who were the responsibility of Thame Union were left with out relief "(....in consequence of irregularities in the settlement of the Account.)"(12) The same thing happened within the Union. When parish overseers were slow in paying over the money for which they were responsible there were often threats of a cessation of out relief for the poor of those parishes. In September 1850 the parishes of Garsington, Horton-cum-Studley, Stanton St. John and the township of Wheatley were subject to such an order and exactly one year later Denton suffered the same fate.
(13)
Nevertheless there was generally a reasonable attitude to the application of the rules relating to outrelief as applied by the Headington Board throughout the period. At one time the Master of the Workhouse reported such a shortage of able women within the house that the necessary work of whitewashing was causing disruption. The relieving officers were ordered to check those women on outrelief and to order any whom were fit to do work into the house on pain of having their relief stopped.(14)
Quite clearly the local guardians of the district, whether elected to that official position or having a responsibility because of their status, were willing to carry out their legal duties but within the local framework rather than in some slavish following of central diktats. They operated on a pragmatic level, ensuring that the system was reasonably fair to those in need and yet did not cost the ratepayers, of which group they belonged, more than was acceptable.
These costs were one of the major concerns over the operation of the old system of relief, at least in the southern rural counties, which had been the high costs. The annual cost of relieving the poor from 1803 to 1820 had risen from £4,077,891 to £7,329,594.(15) There were other worries, not least the moral effects of encouraging able bodied men to accept a life of parish help based, in the case of the Allowance System, on the size of his family. It is not possible to see whether the new system had any effect on the costs in the Headington Union area from the minute books since they only recount what the guardians have spent but not what the parishes had spent before 1836 when the Union was formed. However it is possible to give some idea of the cost of out-relief and the amounts disbursed to individuals from the information that the books do contain.
At each meeting of the Guardians, weekly for the early part of the period under examination and then fortnightly, the amounts of money paid by the Relieving Officers in cash and the amount of bread distributed each week on their orders were approved and reimbursed. These figures give us an inkling of the pattern of payments over the years although there is no suggestion of amounts to individuals. For the first nine full years of the surviving books the amount of cash paid out averages some where around £2264 a year while the amount paid out for goods, mainly bread, was on average c. £1231, a total average of £3495. These amounts varied during the year and the following graph illustrates the fluctuations quarter by quarter throughout the whole period of the study. In some years the fluctuation is quite dramatic simply because, as the years went on, the payments were not always made in the correct period. They do, however, give a fair indication of the seasonal shifts.
If we look at the amounts ordered to be collected from the various parishes as their contributions towards these costs it is possible to get a rough idea of how much out relief cost as a percentage of the rates levied. During the same nine years we find that the minutes record that orders were made for an average of £6460 per annum which makes the percentage paid out in outrelief c. 54%. While the figures fluctuate over the years of our study they only decline slightly as a percentage. In May 1868 Mr Hewlett, one of the relieving officers, reported the average cost of poor relief over three years was £3054 which, assuming the period to be the previous three years, would give a percentage of c. 45%.(16) By this time there had been an increase in overall costs to the union with payment of nuisance officers and County and Police Rates, vaccinations etc., all of which would affect the percentage.
Amounts paid to individuals, whether as cash or in kind, are very difficult to determine. For those paupers who were on permanent lists there was obviously a set of rates as we have seen from references to the attempts at increasing the amounts but exactly what those rates were and what the formula, if any, was for each case we have little information. One scale of allowances was included in the minutes for 5th June 1873 for widows with children which is some help. A widow with one child was to be given 2 4lb loaves but no cash and where there were six children then they were to exist on five shillings (25 p) and 4 loaves.
There are some figures, however, and these may give us a guide. In 1841 we see that Witney Union was told that Jane Hawkins from Hailey but living in St. Clements was being given 1s 2d in cash and 7d's worth of bread per week while Woodstock Union was told that Solomon Cox of Kidlington was getting 4s 6d plus 5s 7d of bread. The disparity was probably due to their differing family circumstances since the records do not show us details although in May 1844 it appears that Solomon Cox and his wife and four children were admitted into the workhouse. Similar amounts were paid to other women with Bicester Union being authorised to pay Charlotte Ward 2s and one loaf in 1869 while in 1873 Charlton were to pay 4s 6d to Mary Ann Holder. In March 1870 St. Mary-le-Bone were told that they could continue to pay 7s to Mark Waring until end of Michaelmas Quarter for himself and family. In August of the same year a Henry Price was ordered to pay 7s a week to his wife who he refused to live with in addition to paying the rent of a small room.(17)
None of these amounts seem over generous but it must be remembered that agricultural wages in the area were quite low
(18) and the principle of "less eligibility" meant that the payments were purely for subsistent. If the recipient could not survive then the alternative was to enter the workhouse.
Of course, as outlined at the start, outrelief should only have been allowed in special circumstances, mainly illness, old age or incapacitation. Exactly how far these categories were stuck to is impossible to determine from the Minute Books but we can see some of the illnesses for which relief was allowed from the early years of the books. From August 1841, the first surviving volume, to March 1848 the lists of those allowed outrelief for sickness were recorded complete with the illness. These vary from a note of "Poorly" to "Inflammation of the brain" and just about anything else we might imagine including bad backs, headaches as well as confinement in the case of some female claimants or the wives of some male claimants. Children's illnesses and accidents are also included as requests for relief and many of these would probably be given medical help in the form of basic medicines, arrow-root was common, or in extreme cases extra food. As we have already seen exactly what relief was awarded is difficult to establish and none of these entries give any clues but we can quantify the cases.
The total number of individual awards during this six and one half year period was 2076 which gives an average of c. 319 per year covering 158 different people. The largest single reason given was confinement, some 196 instances, with fever as a single reason for help at 155. Cold either on its own or in conjunction with some other condition accounted for around 266 cases and coughs a further 92. Unfortunately the practice of including the lists was discontinued and those of the various officers do not seem to have survived but it can be assumed that the pattern of medical reasons continued in future years.
The other reasons for relief, age and infirmity, were dealt with almost automatically with the lists periodically being reviewed. On occasion individuals were considered no longer eligible for outrelief and ordered into the workhouse. This happened in May 1869 when a Benjamin Carter was told his outrelief would end because he had a son living in Birmingham who could support him.(19) In spite of this only a month later relief was agreed in the case of an Anne Love who was living with her son-in-law in Cowley while in 1873 a child was granted outrelief to board outside workhouse.
While it is impossible from the evidence contained in the Guardians' Minute Books to assess the effect upon the cost of outdoor relief compared with the period before the existence of the Board it is possible to draw some broad conclusions. It is true that the London based Commissioners were able to regulate and, at times, influence the actions of the local people. But the interpretation of the 1834 Act and subsequent ones with their ever attendant regulations was local and did not always give the impression of rigidly slavish following the letter of the law. The local guardians used their discretion and common sense to control the use of outrelief and, although by modern standards it might not have been overly generous or sympathetic, one still gets the impression that, within the context of the times, they were not the harsh Mr Bumbles of "Oliver Twist". Certainly the criticisms of the Inspector during the last years of our survey indicate that he felt that the Headington Union Guardians were overly relaxed in their attitude to the use of outdoor relief rather than using the workhouse.
|
