22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Recent writers have pointed out that the 1834 act often made little immediate difference to the practice of local poor-law authorities. The poor-law commissioners lacked the means or the will to enforce their programme. Poor law unions did not replace the township as the effective unit of administration. The same men (albeit with different titles) remained in control. Authorities continued to vary greatly in efficiency and generosity, strong determinants of leniency or harshness being the fortunes of the local economy and the strength of local impulses towards paternalism or frugality. In Nottinghamshire, for example, relief policy became steadily more stringent from the 1820s onwards, largely owing to the work of cost-conscious magistrates; 1834 speeded the current, rather than changed its course. On the other hand, in the Durham unions surveyed by Peter Dunkley, relief was generous throughout the 1830s, but stingy when the local economy was hit by slump after 1840; in the Hungry Forties, the Durham unions were as ruthless as the poor law commission in their attitude towards the poor – and sometimes, indeed, were more so, the commission protesting vainly against the overcrowding of workhouses. Even local authorities' generous phases reflected a shrewd assessment of the ratepayers' best interests: Rhodes Boyson has shown how the north-east Lancashire unions' insistence on continuing outdoor relief was due in part to a realisation that to enforce indoor relief in all cases would be much more costly.
2 Boyson, Rhodes, ‘The new poor law in north-east Lancashire, 1834–1871’, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, LXX (1960)Google Scholar; Digby, Anne, ‘The labour market and the continuity of social policy after 1834: the case of the eastern counties’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, XXVIII (1975)Google Scholar; Dunkley, Peter, ‘The “ Hungry Forties ” and the new poor law: a case study’, Historical Journal, XVII(1974)Google Scholar,Marshall, J. D.,‘The Nottinghamshire reformers and their contribution to the new poor law’, Economic History Review, 2nd series,XIII (1960–1)Google Scholar; Midwinter, Eric, Social administration in Lancashire 1830–1860: poor law, public health and police (Manchester, 1969)Google Scholar; Walsh, Vincent, ‘Old and new poor laws in Shropshire, 1820–1870’, Midland History, II (1974)Google Scholar.
3 They included Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Hull, Plymouth and Southampton.
4 Searby, P., ‘“lists of Prices” in the Coventry silk industry, 1800–1860’, Bulletin of the Society for the Study of Labour History, no. 27 (1973)Google Scholar. Prest, John, The industrial revolution in Coventry (Oxford, 1960), pp. 43 ffGoogle Scholar.
5 L.&P.41 Geo.III, c. 62: An act for the better reliefand employment ofthe poor in Coventry.
6 See for example P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13380, Herbert Dewes to poor law board, 24 Sept. 1855.
7 These details have been drawn from commercial directories, and from Coventry Record Office [C.R.O.]: Proceedings of the Guardians of the Poor for St Michael, 1801–61.
8 C.R.O.: Proceedings of the Guardians, pp. 16–77. From this source come the statistical details of poor relief in this article, unless another citation is given. Statistical tables relating to the poor law in Coventry, reconstructed from C.R.O.: Proceedings of the Guardians, are given in Searby, P., ‘Weavers and freemen in Coventry, 1820–1861’ (Warwick Ph.D. thesis, 1972), pp. 606–13Google Scholar.
9 The able-bodied and those dependent on them. The aged and the chronically sick were the permanent outpoor.
10 P.P.: 1817, VI, H.C. 462: Report from the select committee on the poor laws, with the minutes of evidence, 139 ff. C.R.O.: Proceedings of the Guardians, p. 104.
11 C.R.O.: Proceedings of the Guardians, pp. 158, 162.
12 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377: Poor law union papers, Coventry 1834–43, Edward Gulson to George Nicholls, 24 Sept. 1834.
13 P.P.: 1818, V, H. C. 400: Report and minutes ofevidence of the House of Lords committee on the poor laws, 189 ff.; 1834, XXIX, H.C. 44: Report of the royal commission on the poor laws, appendix A, part II, Reports of assistant commissioners, 22a ff.; 1837–8, XVIII, part 1, H.C. 145: Fifth report of the select committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, 22.
14 P.R.O.:M.H. 12/13377, list of the casual outpoor,10 Mar. 1830.P.P.: 1817, VI, H.C.462, 141. Blaug, Mark,‘The poor law report reexamined’, Journal of Economic History, XXIV (1964)Google Scholar.
15 P.P.: 1837–8, XVIII, parti, H.C. 138: Second report from the select committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act , 17, 20; 1837–8, XVIII, part I, H.C. 140: Third report of the s.c…,25; 1843, XXI [468]: Ninth annual report of the poor law commissioners, 152.
16 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, list of the casual outpoor, 10 Mar. 1830, 4 f.
17 P.P.: 1837–8, XVIII, part 1, H.C. 136: First report from the select committee on the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1; H.C. 138, 18; H.C. 140, 25; 1843, XXI a [468], 156.
18 Coventry Herald, 1 Oct., 8 Oct. 1830.
19 P.P.: 1837–8, XVIII, part 1, H.C. 138, 17 ff.; H.C. 145,22; 1834, H.C. 44, appendix A, 23a.Coventry Herald, 2 Dec. 1831, 22 Mar. 1833. P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, marginal note by Gulson on printed report of the directors for 1833; Gulson to Nicholls, 24 Sept. 1834.
20 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, MS note on printed list of the casual outpoor, 10 Mar. 1830; printed preface to list of the outpoor, 27 Feb. 1833.
21 Coventry Herald, 2 Sept. 1831Google Scholar.
22 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, list of the outpoor, 27 Feb. 1833,3 ff. P.P.: 1834, XXIX, H.C. 44, appendix A, 23a.
23 C.R.O.: Proceedings of the guardians of t h e poor, p. 162. P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, List of the outpoor, 27 Feb. 1833.
24 In October 1834 Gulson was one of the first four assistant commissioners to be appointed by the poor-law commission: Mackay, Thomas, A history of the English poor law (London, 1898), III, 174Google Scholar.
25 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, Richard Earle to Edwin Chadwick, 16 Feb. 1838. Coventry Herald, 2 Feb. 1838Google Scholar.
26 Coventry Herald, 20 Apr. 1838Google Scholar. Coventry Standard, 1 Apr. 1842Google Scholar. C.R.O.: Proceedings of the guardians of the poor, pp. 200 ff.
27 Coventry Standard, 1 Apr. 1842Google Scholar.
28 P.P.: 1843, XXI [468], 158 ff.
29 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, Edwin Chadwick to the Directors of the Poor, 25 Oct. 1834.
30 P.P.: 1843, XXI [468], 152 ff. P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, Report of Robert Weale, 20 Nov.1840.
31 P.P.: 1842, XIX [389]: Eighth annual report of the poor law commissioners, 18 ff; 1843, XXI [468], 12 ff.
32 Coventry Herald, 8 Apr. 1836. Coventry Standard, 1 Apr. 1842.
33 Coventry Herald, 4 Apr. 1834.
34 Ibid., 12 Feb. 1841, 20 May, 10 June 1842.
35 Coventry Standard, 5 Mar. 1841.
36 Ibid. 10 June 1842.
37 Coventry Standard and Coventry Herald, 10 June 1842.
38 5 & 6 Viet., c. 57: An act to continue the poor law commission.
39 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13377, General orders, etc., for Coventry, Jan. and Feb. 1844. P.P.: 1844, XIX [560]: Tenth annual report of the poor law commission, 15.
40 For an example, see P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13378, Edwin Chadwick to Thomas Hine (directors' clerk) 28 Apr. 1846, over the apprenticeship regulation for pauper children.
41 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13379, John Graves to poor law board, 8 July i&tf.sApr. 1848; M.H. 12/13380, Robert Weale to P.L.B., 14 Aug. 1855. C.R.O.: Minutes of the directors of the poor, I, 19 June 1844; Proceedings of the guardians of the poor, 4 Mar. 1844. Coventry Herald, 13 Dec. 1844. Coventry Standard, 8 Mar. 1844, 14 Oct. 1859.
42 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13378, Directors of the Poor to poor law commission, 12 June 1844; M.H. 12/13380, Herbert Dewes to P.L.B., 30 Nov. 1853, P.L.B. to Thomas Hine, 7 Dec. 1853; M.H. 12/13381, W. Harris to P.L.B., 20 May 1858, Robert Weale to P.L.B., 24 July 1858. C.R.O.: Minutes of the directors of the poor, I,5June,12June 1844. The central authority accepted the need for much outdoor relief for able-bodied paupers in industrial areas: see Rose, M. E., ‘The New Poor Law in an industrial area’, in Hartwell, R. M. (ed.), The industrial revolution (Oxford, 1970), pp. 130 ffGoogle Scholar.
43 Coventry Herald, 19 Jan. 1844.
44 It seems certain, too, that the greater part of the reduction is to be accounted for by a more rigorous policy towards the poor in Coventry (both those with settlements and those without) rather than by the decrease in relief payments to those paupers with Coventry settlements who were resident elsewhere. Though this decrease took place, it cannot account for the total reduction: in 1842 these payments amounted to only £663; outdoor relief cost about £4,850 in the same year.
45 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13378, 13379, 13380 13381, reports of inspections and semi-annual audits.
46 Coventry Standard, 14 Dec. 1860.
47 P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13382, Secretary of the poor law board to A. H. Pears, 26 Nov. 1860.
48 Ibid., W. W. Harris to poor law board, 17 Nov., 29 Nov. i860, 15 May 1861.
49 P.P.: 1834, XXII, H.C. 606: Twenty-eighth report of the charity commissioners, 113 ff.; 1856, XXII [2060]: Third report of the charity commissioners for England and Wales , 99 ff. V.C.H. Warwickshire, VIII, 399 ff.
50 The other five charities were Bird's, Crow's, Jelliffs, Jesson's, and Wale's.
51 Before 1836 only freemen were considered for the White gift. Of the 311 freemen who received the £4 gift at the Whitsuntide distributions in 1827 and 1828,278 had voted for the corporation candidates in the 1826 election, and only 33 for the Liberals. C.R.O.: Council minutes, 16, 12 June 1827, 3 June 1828.
52 P.P.: 1834, XXII, H.C. 606, 116 ff. Searby, P., ‘Weavers and freemen’, pp. 169 ffGoogle Scholar. In 1836 the administration of the corporation charities was transferred to trustees appointed by the lord chancellor.
53 The charities listed in footnote 50.
54 Before 1832 Coventry electors resident in the house of industry or almshouses at elections were disqualified. The Reform Act of 1832 widened the exclusion, denyinga place in the electoral register of any borough (compiled each autumn) to any person who had received relief, indoors or out, in the year ending the previous July; the disqualification applied to both freemen and £10 householders. P.P.: 1826–27, IV, H.C. 148: Report from the select committee on the Coventry election, 261. 2 & 3 Will. IV, c. 45, s. 36.
55 The size of the electorate was due to the freeman franchise. In 1866 Coventry was one of the most popular constituencies, with 5,000 electors-one inhabitant in eight. P.P.: 1874, LIII, H.C. 381: Electoral statistics: return to an Address…dated 1 May 1874, 2 ff.
56 P.P.: 1834, XXII, H.C. 606, 113 ff.; 1856, XXII [2060], 99 ff. Coventry Standard, 18 Jan.,20 Mar., 11 Apr. 1856. P.R.O.: M.H. 12/13382, Jenkins, John, ‘Notes on the distress in Coventry’, 14 Dec. 1860Google Scholar.
57 P.P.: 1856, XXII [2060], 8. Charity commission archives, Registered file 216235/3, General municipal charities, Coventry, Memorial of the directors of the poor, 10 Jan. 1856.
58 Coventry Standard, 29 Jan. 1841. For the funds of 1837–60 see Coventry Herald and Coventry Standard for the months in question.
59 Coventry Standard, Apr.-Oct. 1860.
60 Ibid. 23 Nov. 1860.
61 Searby, P., ‘Weavers and freemen’, pp. 549 ffGoogle Scholar.
62 Church, R. A., Economic and social change in a Midland town: Victorian Nottingham,1815–1900 (London, 1966), p. 106Google Scholar. Patterson, A. T ., Radical Leicester (Leicester, 1954), p. 140Google Scholar.
63 P.P.: 1829, VII, H.C. 19: Twentieth report of the charity commissioners, 383 ff. V.C.H. Leicestershire, IV, 410 ff.
64 Church, R. A., pp. 26 ffGoogle Scholar. Thomis, M. I., Politics andsociety in Nottingham (Oxford, 1969), pp. 16 ffGoogle Scholar. Wells, F. A., The British hosiery trade: its history and organisation (London, 1935), pp. 94 ffGoogle Scholar.
65 Church, R. A., 112 ffGoogle Scholar.; Patterson, A. T., 158 ffGoogle Scholar.; Greaves, R. W., The corporation of Leicester, 1689–1836 (Oxford, 1939), pp. 42 ffGoogle Scholar.; V.C.H. Leicestershire, IV, 209 ff., 258 ff.
