Part 7: Attitudes to the Poor and Rights of Settlement in Eighteenth-Century Thames Ditton.

On Friday 9 August 2013 I sat down to write my concluding blog on the issues concerning poor relief and settlement in eighteenth century Thames Ditton. The news channel played in the background and I watched the BBC report on the Home Office’s much criticized scheme whereby vans are to be driven through London calling on illegal immigrants to leave this country.[1] There is truly nothing new under the sun.

Just as the mobile poor were the subject of much debate and legislation during the eighteenth-century, so governments across the globe are currently preoccupied with the economic and social issues surrounding international immigration. Housing the poor remains a concern: in March this year BBC headlines announced that ‘Councils are to introduce a residency test to stop immigrants gaining immediate access [to council housing].’[2] Likewise, issues concerning the selection of those who can remain and those who should be removed continue to dominate headlines: ‘Immigration spot checks at railway stations across the country are to be investigated by the equality watchdog for possible unlawful discrimination.’[3]

This blog is not written with any political intent but one cannot avoid observing the similarities in the subject-matter that preoccupies the government and press today, as it preoccupied their counterparts 300 years ago.

Returning to the eighteenth century, poor law legislation provided no criteria on how grants of outdoor and indoor relief should be determined, other than in general terms, and made no stipulations as to the level of relief or how often it should be paid. Instead, poor relief was administered by untrained church vestries who applied the general provisions of the legislation in a way that appeared appropriate to that parish, given its local economic circumstances, local politics and local experiences.

 

The duties of parish vestries, churchwardens and overseers of the poor in Thames Ditton appear to have been undertaken in a diligent manner. Despite any apparent lack of qualifications by the incumbents to those posts, the rates were assessed, accounts audited, relief distributed and the workhouse managed. (See, Administration of the Old Poor Laws: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-2-administration-of-old-poor-law.html).

Householders in Thames Ditton took an understandable interest in the fairness of the rates assessed and were not reluctant to question the overseers and, if necessary, enter an appeal against their assessment to the justices of the peace. At a vestry meeting in April 1739 it was agreed that twenty-two people should be excused from payment of the full rate assessed, either because the individuals concerned had been overcharged or because they were deemed too poor to pay. On another occasion, an appeal was made to the Kingston justices following which a further fifteen residents were excused payment of the full rate.

The overseers of Thames Ditton managed settlement and removal issues in such a way as to protect the interests of the parish, balancing the desire to attract sufficient labour to support the local economy against the need to minimise the cost of poor relief. Extant settlement examinations suggest that single women tended to be selected for removal from the parish, particularly where there was a child to support, while married men of working age with a family were allowed to remain in the parish. (See, The Right to Settlement in the Parish of Thames Ditton: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-3-right-to-settlement-in-parish-of.html.)

In comparing the rising cost of poor relief in Thames Ditton with that occurring nationally, the parish seems to have fared fairly well with an average of five per cent of the population in receipt of some form of relief in contrast to a national average of eight per cent. Thames Ditton benefitted from its position on the outskirts of London and, having a fairly mixed economy, it does not appear to have suffered some of the hardships experienced elsewhere in the country. As a result, overseers of the poor were able to maintain the parish rate at around one shilling in the pound between 1723 and 1782. Nevertheless, weekly pensions for those seeking relief yielded an income below subsistence level and the poor would have needed to find other means to subsidise the cost of living through casual labour or use of common land.

Definitive evidence on wage movements during this period is imperfect: payments to labourers and agricultural workers were often made on a daily basis, fluctuating with the highs and lows of seasonal activities and winter shortages. Our understanding of income levels is further complicated when many labourers and casual workers had more than one source of income. It is likely that a labourer’s wage in 1690 was between £11-£15 per annum and was little changed by 1749, when an agricultural labourers’ wage was about one shilling day which, assuming a working year of 300 days, equates to a salary of £15 per annum.[4] In contrast, poor relief payments in Thames Ditton averaged 1s 6d a week, per claimant, which would have yielded an annual income of £3 12s: on those figures, poor relief payments clearly fell far below a living wage. Before the advent of the workhouse, a number of the poor, elderly and infirm parishioners lodged with other families in the parish. It is highly likely that the very poor resided with those similarly in need, with the payment of rent and a weekly pension directly to the householder being a motivating factor for taking in a lodger. (See, Obtaining Outdoor Relief in Eighteenth-Century Thames Ditton: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-4-obtaining-outdoor-relief-in.html.)

At different points throughout the period 1723-1782, pauper children were severally placed under the care of Mr Keel; placed with a gentleman of the parish who was able to provide work or training; or put out to work through an apprenticeship agreement entered into on their behalf. (See, Education and Pauper Apprentices in Eighteenth-Century Thames Ditton: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/education-and-pauper-apprentices-in.html). After 1760 pauper children and adults would have been expected to enter the workhouse until such time as they were able to find either permanent or seasonal employment.

As considered in an earlier blog, advocates of the workhouse erroneously believed that community workhouses provided the solution for managing the spiralling cost of maintaining the poor. The theory was that parish workhouses might be run at a profit if its residents were set to work, thus relieving the burden on the parish rate. (See, The Parish Workhouse in Eighteenth-Century Thames Ditton: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-5-parish-workhouse-in-eighteenth.html).

A combination of the rising level of the poor rate and published accounts of the success of workhouses in other parishes was likely to have prompted the opening of the Thames Ditton parish workhouse in 1760. However, workhouses did not prove to be a long-term panacea against the costs of maintaining the poor. For those on the margins of poverty and subsistence-living, some payments of outdoor relief continued to be necessary even after the opening of the workhouse.

There are no first-hand accounts of what conditions were like in the workhouse at Thames Ditton but we know from the1760 articles of agreement with Mr Keel that (for a fixed rate of £180 per annum) he was required to provide fuel, candles and soap; clothes and shoes; meals in accordance with a bill of fare (see below); bedding; and all medicines and doctors as necessary. He was expected to take any pauper to hospital as might need it, whether they lived in the parish or workhouse, and to bury any pauper who died either within or outside the workhouse. Further he was required to provide any pauper placed as apprentice with 25 shillings or a set of clothes, pay all fees and expenses of taking a pauper in the parish before the justices for examination and any subsequent removal of the pauper up to a distance of 30 miles. The rising costs of maintaining the workhouse and high turnover of workhouse masters in Thames Ditton may explain why articles appointing John Summers as workhouse master in 1781 included additional provisions allowing him to set the poor to work and retain the benefit of any work done by them.

Workhouse Bill of Fare, 12 June 1786.[5]

	Breakfast	Dinner	Afternoon	Supper
Sunday	Bread and butter or Cheese as the poor chooses and one pint of Beer	Bread, Mutton with Roots or Greens if in season or Peas Pudding And one pint of Beer		Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Monday	Bread and Broth	Bread and Butter and one Pint of Beer		Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Tuesday	Bread and Milk Pottage	Bread, Beef with Roots or Greens if in season or Peas Pudding And one pint of Beer		Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Wednesday	Bread &Broth	Bread and cold meat or Rice Milk	Half a pint of Beer	Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Thursday	Bread and Milk Pottage	Bread, Beef with Roots or Greens if in season or Peas Pudding And one pint of Beer		Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Friday	Bread and Broth	Bread and cold meat [and peas] pottage	Half a pint of Beer	Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer
Saturday	Bread and Milk pottage or Water Gruel	Suet pudding and one pint of Beer		Bread and Cheese or Butter And one pint of Beer

While workhouse diets were very plain, at least the inmates were provided with three meals a day, although the level of vitamin C would have been very low. The Thames Ditton workhouse had its own brew-house for making beer which would have been consumed by both adult and child residents, at a time when water quality was very uncertain.[6]

Alms-houses in Thames Ditton provided accommodation for six poor parishioners and, although little is known about the people who occupied those properties, it is unlikely that they were occupied by the most destitute of the parish. Allocation of a place in one of the alms-houses was made on the recommendation of the minister, churchwardens and overseers, allowing the vestry to exercise social control in the selection of ‘respectable’ paupers. Vestry minutes of May 1796 record the selection of Ann Bish to occupy one of the vacant houses. Her late husband had been a ratepayer of a property valued at £5 in 1795 and there is no record of either of them having previously claimed relief from the parish. Henry Bridge’s endowment for the alms-houses included the provision of £30 per annum, to be paid proportionally to the occupants. Vestry minutes of 17 April 1786 record that the cost of repairs to the houses was first deducted from the allowances paid to each of the six residents, in accordance with the terms of Henry Bridges’ will. Clearly, Mr Bridges intention was that his gift should take at least six of the ‘deserving poor’ out of the system of parish relief drawn from the poor rate.

The rising cost of the poor is reflected in an increase in the level of poor rates levied during the period 1723-1782 against the background of a fairly static population. (See, Thames Ditton, the Place and People: http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-old-poor-law-1723-1782-part-1.html.) Not all disbursements listed in the overseers’ accounts were made to those with rights of settlement in the parish and one-off payments were made throughout the period to ‘several poor persons in distress’ or ‘a person with a pass’. These entries do not necessarily provide evidence of the benevolence of the vestry but are more likely to be indicative of an underlying problem for a parish located on a main route between the south coast and London.  However, the parish was protected against passing ‘scavengers’ who received relief under an Act of 1722, which declared that payment of the ‘highway rate’ would not confer settlement on its recipients.[7] It seems that the motivation of the parish vestry in granting or refusing relief lay somewhere in the middle ground, where the law was adapted by the parish according to prevailing economic conditions and seasonal variations together with real consideration towards those in need.

While I hope that this series of micro-studies on the administration of the poor laws in eighteenth-century Thames Ditton have been interesting and informative, they are not offered as a conclusive picture of experiences of poverty elsewhere in the country, or even in a neighbouring parish. It was parish autonomy in applying poor law legislation that makes each parish uniquely interesting.

If you have enjoyed reading this blog, please follow me using the link on right-hand panel.

---

[1] Home office 'go home' campaign probed by ASA (9 August 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23641710, accessed 10 August 2013.

[2] Keith Vaz warns of immigration 'arms race' (30 March 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21986035, accessed 10 August 2013.

[3] Immigrant spot checks: Equality watchdog investigates (3 August 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23552088, accessed 10 August 2013.

[4] Wrightson, K., and D. Levine, (1979) Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525-1700, New York, London: Academic Press, p. 41; Thirsk, J. (editor) (1985) The Agrarian History of England and Wales, vol. V, part II (1640-1750), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 5.

[5] North Kingston History Room, NKHR ref. 2568/6/2-5, the weekly bill of fare for Thames Ditton being the same as provided in Kingston.

[6]. See Higginbotham, Peter, http://www.workhouses.org.uk/life/food.shtml, accessed 3 August 2013.

[7] 9 Geo. I, c.7 (1722) Poor Relief Act.  .

Part 6: Education and Pauper Apprentices in Eighteenth-Century Thames Ditton.

In an earlier blog I referred to pauper children housed with Mr Keel in the Thames Ditton, before the opening of the workhouse in 1760.[1] However, in addition, the overseers of the poor were responsible for the education and training of pauper children. 

The 1601 Poor Relief Act distinguished between those able and not able to work.[2]  Those classified as not able to work included: persons incapacitated through sickness or old age (though no age for retirement was specified), widows, deserted mothers, unmarried mothers and orphaned children. The intention of the Act was that each parish should provide training for pauper children who found themselves resident in a workhouse, through education in reading, writing and casting accounts. They were to be taught a useful trade or craft and, on reaching the age of fourteen, apprenticed or sent out to work. By these means pauper children might obtain sufficient skills to support themselves in the community.

While similar terms applied for running the workhouses in Thames Ditton and Kingston, the 1725 scheme for Kingston included a requirement that the inmates should be taught to read and write and set to work. In contrast, articles of agreement between the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Thames Ditton and the workhouse masters (1760 and 1781) required only that the poor were set to work: no reference was made to the education of the poor.[3]

                                         Eighteenth-century school room.

There were six small schools in the parish by 1788, teaching about 90 children, although there were no endowed schools for parish children.[4] There are no details available regarding the status of children attending the small schools but with a population of about 900, about two-thirds of which were possibly children, it is likely that the greater proportion of poor children received no formal education. Nevertheless, for pauper children with no means of education or training, the overseers of the poor were authorised to place them in apprenticeships, the parish rate covering the costs entailed in doing so.

Only twenty-two pauper-apprenticeship agreements have survived for the period 1715-1795 and concern twenty boys and two girls of the parish. Indentures of apprenticeship were arranged between the overseers and individual tradesmen. The occupations of the indenture holders provide evidence of whether these were true apprenticeships or merely a convenient way of obtaining cheap labour, while disposing of a burden on the parish.  As can been seen in Table 1 (below) only two girls are found amongst these records, both placed in low skilled trades. While husbandry, farming and the like were not necessarily skilled trades, the boys would have learnt marketable skills for a largely rural community. Only four apprentices in this sample were placed in Thames Ditton, the benefit to the parish being that the remainder of the children would (in time) acquire settlement in the new parish: should any of the children fall back into poverty in later years, they would no longer be a drain on the rate-payers of Thames Ditton.[5]

Table 1: Apprenticeships of pauper children.[6]

Occupation	Term of years	Sex	Location
Farmer	until aged 22	Male	Thames Ditton
Waterman	until aged 24	Male	Thames Ditton
Fisherman	until aged 21	Male	Thames Ditton
Blacksmith	until aged 21	Male	Thames Ditton
Smith	until aged 21	Male	Long Ditton
Tile Maker	until aged 24	Male	Long Ditton
Buying and selling goods	until aged 21	Female	Kingston upon Thames
Taylor	until aged 21	Male	Kingston upon Thames
Barber and Perukemaker[7]	7 years	Male	Kingston upon Thames
Gardiner	until aged 21	Male	West Molsey
Husbandry[8]	until aged 21	Male	Walton on Thames
Shoemaker	from age 12 to 21	Male	Epsom
Polloner[9]	until aged 24		Richmond
Unknown		Male	Richmond
Unknown		Male	Richmond
Gardener	9 years	Male	Hampton Wick
Fisherman	until aged 22	Male	Old Brentford, Middx
Basket maker		Female	Hammersmith
Glover	until aged 24	Male	Isleworth, Middx
Bodix Maker[10]	3 years until aged 24	Male	Hanwell, Middx
Gardener			Wandsworth
Cordwainer[11]	until aged 21	Male	Westminster

 

Some apprenticeship indentures include details of payments to the tradesmen/masters.  Charles Buckland was paid £10 6 shillings for taking Mary Buckland as apprentice for ‘buying and selling of goods which my wife uses’; and £3 7 shillings was paid to William North on his taking John Nell as an apprentice in ‘husbandry’. Provisions regarding child welfare do not generally appear in the agreements between the overseers of the poor and the new master, although, the indenture held by John Sampson stipulated that ‘if John Sampson beat or abuse Thomas Ward, Sampson to pay Churchwardens or Overseers £6. 6s.’ Although the agreement did not require Sampson to pay compensation to the child for a beating, it may have been the intention that the apprenticeship could be terminated in such circumstances. New masters were expected to be bound by their agreements, as highlighted in the terms of the indenture with Thomas Fielder which required him to pay £20 to the overseers if John Hailey’s apprenticeship was cancelled in the first seven years. Some indentures required an annual payment to be made to apprentices over the age of twenty-one.  John Warren was required to pay John Freeland £7 per annum from the age of 21, being the last three years of his apprenticeship as a tile maker; and William Stibbs was required to pay John Rogers £1 per annum from the age of 21, for the final three years of his apprenticeship as a bodix maker. 

 

The proportion of children in the population rose in the second half of the eighteenth century and, thus, the dependency ratio of people who had to be supported similarly increased.[12] Before the workhouse was opened, provision for the maintenance of a pauper child was generally included in the family pension and, if a child was abandoned or orphaned, it could be boarded out. It may have been that some children between the ages of five and nine were been boarded out in preparation for an apprenticeship.[13] Certainly the evidence from Thames Ditton is that children were not necessarily boarded out with the poorest members of the community in need of a subsidy to the weekly income, since nearly all payments for the care of both boys and girls were made to men of some means. Mr Mann occupied a house and land valued at £12, and received a payment of £1 2 shillings for the care of ‘Turners boy’ over a period of twenty-two weeks; Mr Brook’s house and land was valued at £60 and he was paid £1 6 shillings for the care of ‘Butler’s boy’ over a period of twenty-six weeks, until the boy was apprenticed to Mr Edwards; Mr Holland’s house valued at £7 and he received an income for the care of Henry Hart, while his sister, Hannah Hart, was in receipt of poor relief  at one shilling and sixpence a week. Whether married men received payments in their own right, or on behalf of their wives, is not specified: however, the only payment made directly to a married woman during the same period (1758) was for the care of a poor man.

While records for Thames Ditton are too sparse to enable any real conclusions to be drawn the indications are that boarding out, followed by an apprenticeship, were preferred over idleness in the workhouse. The level of training and care received by pauper children who were apprenticed out can only be guessed at. One may wonder about the intentions of the justices and parish vestry, whether they were sentimental philanthropists or motivated by a system that subsidised low wages and maintained widespread pauperism.

If you have enjoyed reading this blog, please follow me using the link on right-hand panel.

---

[1] http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-5-parish-workhouse-in-eighteenth.html.

[2] 43 Eliz., I c.2 (1601) The Poor Relief Act.

[3] SHCW ref. 2568/9/ 1-2, and 2568/7/4

[4] Surrey Record Society (1994) Parson and Parish in Eighteenth-century Surrey: replies to Bishop’s Visitation: Surrey Record Society, vol. 34, Guildford: Surrey Record Society, p. 105.

[5] See http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-3-right-to-settlement-in-parish-of.html.; 3 & 4 Will & Mary, c 18 (1691), the Act extended the right of settlement to apprentices of a resident master.

[6] See also: Surrey Record Society Number XXX London, December, 1929 for apprenticeships between 1711 and 1731 although these record all apprenticeships, not just those of paupers.

[7] A ‘perukemaker’ was a wigmaker.

[8] Husbandry concerns  work with farm animals.

[9] Polloner possibly means a ‘polenter’ or poulter.

[10] Probably a ‘bodeys maker’, one who made the bodices for women's garments.

[11] A cordwainer was a leather worker or shoemaker.

[12] Slack, Paul (1990) The English poor law, 1531-1782, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24.

[13] Hindle, S., On the Parish, p. 64.