Paupers and York Poor Law Union, 1837-42
Dick Hunter has written an update report for our Poverty Project: April 2020
Ann Shipton, 43 and single, lived in Swann Street. She was unable to support herself as a char and washerwoman due to an accident in 1841 and applied for welfare, or relief as it was known. She was awarded four shillings a week for eleven weeks; and two shillings for the twelfth week. Relief was then discontinued as she had improved sufficiently to earn again. This account looks at how she applied for relief. Who was responsible for its provision? And how did the system work?
Prior to the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) paupers applied to their parish, in this case St Mary Bishophill Junior. The parish overseer reported to vestry members who often knew the applicant, and decided on the merits of the case. Each parish was responsible through the parish poor rate for meeting the costs of those paupers who had legal settlement in the parish. Settlement could be conferred by birth, marriage, residence in an area for a particular length of time, employment, or through various property qualifications. Those applying for relief without being legally settled in the parish in which they were claiming could be removed to their ‘home’ parish. There was a financial reckoning, with parishes responsible for the costs of their settled poor living in other parishes. Thus a parish was not responsible for all those living within its boundaries but had responsibility for many living elsewhere.
After 1834, decisions were made by Poor Law Union Boards of Guardians. The Poor Law Commission was the governing body charged with overseeing the New Poor Law from its establishment in 1834 until 1847. It provided direction to poor law unions, though relations between unions and the central commissioners were sometimes fractious, as attested below. The Poor Law Union (PLU) was the basic administrative unit of the New Poor Law., with groups of parishes administering relief to the poor. York Poor Law Union, formed in July 1837, covered 103 square miles and comprised 80 parishes, of which 32 were urban and 48 rural. The poor law union was governed by a partly-elected board of guardians - all male - and financed by a rate levied on property owners. Each union was required to have a workhouse, providing in-relief.
York's population expanded from 26,260 in 1831 to 28,842 in 1841, and 36,303 in 1851. St Mary Bishophill Junior with a population of 1,462 was the largest of the 16 urban and rural parishes within district one of the PLU. Its guardian – Henry Smales – was elected vice-chair of the Board. York guardians met on Thursdays each week, and discussed issues relating to poor relief. They had discretion as to out-relief approved, with variations in amounts between PLUs. Relief was in kind or cash (or a combination of both), enabling paupers remain in their own homes on temporary or permanent relief. The Board's decisions were characterised by a desire to minimise cost to ratepayers. It noted instructions and guidance from the central authority, and discussed 'deserving' cases.
A large proportion of those in receipt of relief received it in the community. For example, in the quarter ending 27 June 1838 there were 15 men, 46 women and 48 children (a total of 109) receiving relief in the old parish workhouse in Marygate at a cost of £156. This compared to 2,067 receiving out-relief, comprising 343 men, 806 women and 918 children at a cost of £2653.
Relieving officers (RO) were appointed, one for the urban (city) area; one rural. They assessed applications; recommended any necessary action (such as admittance to the workhouse, or attendance by a district medical officer); and paid out-relief to those eligible. They reported directly to the Board of Guardians, were expected to know how to keep accounts; and live in the district where they worked. Posts were full-time, excluding other trade or profession 'or from entering any other service'. Their duties were:
-
to administer immediate relief - e.g. food; lodging; medical - in cases of sudden/urgent need, without regard for a pauper's settlement.
-
to supply weekly allowances to paupers, and to pay/administer relief to the amount ordered by the Guardians. The rates were frequently three shillings for a single person; and five shillings for a married couple. There was a maximum of one shilling and sixpence for a woman with. a bastard child. The award of four shillings a week to Ann Shipton illustrates discretion that was sometimes exercised by the Board.
-
to notify the appropriate Parish Guardian of the Board meeting at which the case would be heard.
Richard Leafe (36) was appointed RO for the urban area in 1837 on a salary of £60 a year, parsimonious compared to that paid by some Poor Law Unions in Yorkshire. Leafe was born in Bishopthorpe, and married with eight children. £200 sureties were provided by George Burton (farmer) of Lamgwith and Benjamin Leafe (farmer) of Elvington. Leafe was required to notify weekly Board meetings of the sum paid out in relief the previous week, and subsequently reimbursed. He was based in an office in Thursday Market (St Sampson Square) five mornings a week, from ten to twelve, to receive applications, a board fixed outside the office to notify the public. Guardians later transferred his office (relief station) to the front room of the vagrants office in Little Shambles, thus saving £20 a year. These premises incorporated a vagrant lodging house, and the Leafe family home. Claimants such as Ann Shipton might find it a demoralising place to apply to for relief, with the sound of vagrants breaking stone in the yard in the mornings. It was to here she arrived each week to receive her relief cash.
Leafe investigated initial applications, though once an allowance had been granted little was done to monitor the recipient or their situation. He was certainly busy, receiving ten to twelve applications each morning in 1838. With long lists of paupers it is unlikely he was able to make regular visits to those in receipt of relief, despite an expectation he do so. Guardians, concerned at the quality and effectiveness of staff, set up a committee to examine accounts, and efficiency of Leafe and Seymour, workhouse master. It found workhouse accounts imperfect, and Seymour incompetent. Leafe's accounts were not made up till three weeks after the end of the previous quarter. Moreover, the committee noted 'he does not devote the whole of his time to the duties of his Office but still carries on a Public House which he declines to give up'. Leafe was later forced to resign due to irregular financial dealings.
The Board heard applications for relief towards the end of their meetings at the Guildhall. Sometimes these were appeals against earlier decisions. One reporter commented that
The Board heard applications for relief from paupers who had been struck off the lists. There were at lest 100 paupers surrounding the doors, struggling for their turns, so it was somewhat difficult task to get in or out of the room. We do not detail the particulars of the ...cases, as we consider such practice improper, we cannot however but observe one circumstance which supports what we have before advanced. The parties applying for relief are in 9 cases out of 10 totally unknown to the few Guardians who remain to hear the applications – the consequence is that they have in most cases to rely on the paupers' own statements, connected with any little facts that the RO may have obtained, and yet this is held to be a preferable course to the old practice of going to the vestry meeting of parishioners, who were sure to know every circumstance connected with each pauper, and whether the applicants are deserving or not. Some parishes are totally unrepresented either from resignation, illness or absence of the Guardian and their parochial affairs are managed by parties wholly unconnected with them. Against the injustice of such a system we shall at all times raise our voice. The sitting of the Board continued till 10pm (lasting) 11 hours for which wearying...time many of the poor applicants had been wasting their small store of spirits, without food or relief of any kind. Yorkshire Gazette 14 October 1837
Another reporter at the same meeting noted:
the Act bore down with unmitigated severity on many deserving poor...an able-bodied widow with a three year old child said she might support herself but not her child and begged for a small allowance for it. The Chair asked what she felt about it going into the Workhouse. She replied 'my child shall not go there'. She then withdrew, and the Board decided by two or three votes that no allowance be given. York Herald 7 October 1837
These contemporary press reports reveal:
-
how guardians prioritised meeting agendas. Pauper applications and appeals came near the close of sometimes long meetings. Other matters such as tendering for supplies for the workhouse, or financial transactions relating to settlement cases, took precedence.
-
the impersonal relationship between guardians and paupers, compared to the old parish vestry.
-
many guardians had gone home by the time individual cases were heard.
-
respect of the reporters in anonymising claimants.
-
determination of the widow to remain with her child, and readiness of the majority of guardians to refuse out-relief for the child.
-
a range of attitudes of guardians towards claimants.
