Reports of meeting talks

17th August 2022
“Poor Law and Settlement”
Simon Pawley

What a pleasure it was to welcome back Simon Pawley to talk to the Diss Group on 17th August. His last visit was in 2019. This time his topic was Poor Law and Settlement, concentrating on the period post 1662 when the Settlement and Removal Act was introduced. This act placed responsibility for the poor upon every parish, the money being obtained by the Poor Rates levied on the rental value of properties. Those who fell on hard times, whether through sickness or lack of employment would have to prove that they had been issued with a Settlement Certificate in the parish in which they were living to obtain Poor Relief, either inside or outside. Every parish had to appoint two overseers who had to be literate to deal with the responsibilities the post incurred. Their duties were not easy. They had to attend a meeting every month. They had to differentiate between those people who could work and those who could not and then set in motion the appropriate actions. Those who were able would be put to work spinning or other suitable tasks. Lack of a Settlement Certificate would entail the removal of that person to the parish considered to be their place of settlement. Simon said that sometimes overseers, who were often church wardens as well, would try to be kind and help in ways they could.

There were a number of ways to gain settlement -

If it was thought that you were likely to become a charge upon the parish you would be subject to a Settlement Examination. If you failed that then a Removal Order, signed by two JPs, would be issued and you would be removed by cart to the parish that they decided was your rightful abode. It could be miles away. Simon cited one Mary Smollet who had to be transported from Chatham to Newark.

One unfortunate man, who suffered from severe rheumatism, collapsed in Walcott during a bitterly cold spell. The parish decided that his place of settlement was in Clerkenwell so the man was loaded onto the outside of a stagecoach departing for London. Considering that a stage coach would travel about sixty miles a day, the journey must have been horrendous. While in Clerkenwell, the decision was made that he did belong in Walcott and he was taken back. It isn’t known whether he was allowed to sit inside the coach for the return journey.

Orphans posed a bit of a problem so they were given ‘apprenticeships’ which often mean 7 years cheap labour in domestic servitude. Illegitimate children were considered a big problem as they were the responsibility of the parish in which they were born. If the supposed father failed to admit responsibility, he would face examination by the church warden, overseer or even made to appear before the quarter sessions and pressure would be applied on him to enter into a Bastardy Bond whereby he would support the child up to a certain age.

Simon related the complicated but well documented story of Rose Arnold who was impregnated by the son of her employer. The young man tried everything to wriggle out of his responsibility. Then he even asked Rose to marry him and asked her to meet him at a certain place. She was canny enough not to go, fearing that he might kill her. She spent some time living rough and lost her baby in the end.

Nimbyism was as alive and well in the 17th C. as it is today. There were open and closed parishes. The open ones had a high population, attracted transient people and rules were not adhered to. By contrast some parishes were ‘closed.’ Braunston in Northamptonshire was typical of this. It was a tiny place with a small population. They didn’t accept labourers moving there but employed them on a daily basis from elsewhere. There were no public houses, only chapels. Thus, the neighbouring parishes got all the hassle. By now vagrants, or roaming vagabonds, were issued with special passes so they were not whipped as formerly but this could still happen if they were not in possession of a pass.

In the late 18th C. the Speenhamland System was introduced whereby low wages were supplemented on a scale that varied with the price of bread and the number of children in a family. It sounded good on the face of it but in many cases it encouraged the owners of large estates to pay lower wages and at the same time employ labourers from nearby, who could be laid off without warning.

Various acts tinkered with the Poor Laws, not usually for the better although Gilberts Act of 1782 was more humane in that poorhouses were built across parishes for those who couldn’t work through infirmity and outside relief and employment found close to home for others. It was the Poor Law Act of 1834/35 that was the real game changer and not for the better.

Many of us have found ancestors who ended up in those formidable Victorian Union Workhouses. The inmates suffered the most draconian, dehumanizing regimes imaginable inside those large hulking edifices, which cast an air of foreboding across the community. People would only enter when all hope had gone, although some parishes did continue with the old Settlement Law system for some years. Change came slowly. By 1930, most of the old workhouses were being used to house the old and infirm and they were finally legislated out. Some became hospitals but in the eyes of people who had lived in their shadow they still carried the stigma of the shame attached to those poor people who’d had to enter them. It wasn’t unheard of for people to refuse to be admitted, even when they were sick and desperately needing treatment.

The Old Age Pension Act in 1909 had revolutionised the way the elderly were treated. That, together with the National Health Service Act in 1946, meant that the old and infirm were catered for and could live out the end of their lives in some kind of dignity. It had been a long time coming. As usual it was a fast paced interesting talk and we look forward to seeing Simon next year.

Talk documented by Jenny Jenkins.



  [ Home ] [ Miscellaneous ]  

Page last updated: 6 Sep 2022
© Diss Family History Group & Nigel Peacock 2022