Even as far back as Medieval times, there was a basic system for provision of welfare for the poor. Largely this was done by one of the oldest of ‘Third Sector Organisations’ in Britain, the Church;
“Far exceeding the relief thus afforded in casual or organized ways, much of it religiously inspired, was the aid that was provided by the church in its various departments… The condition of being poor could not help gaining a certain social acceptance, when the doing away with ones possessions was advocated as a step in the discipline of salvation.”
Schweinitz (1961, p17)
47 | P a g e
As this indicates, to some extent in this period, ideological religious beliefs about poverty meant that, poverty retained a certain amount of status and social acceptability.
Reflecting this, alms tended to be distributed quite indiscriminately by the Church, to all comers, irrespective of ‘desert’, which was to later become a major issue around support for the poor, right up to the present day.
However, the efficiency of church support for the poor has been questioned. A large proportion of the donations to the church went not into welfare for the poor, but rather to religious purposes such as church embellishment and masses for the dead
(Chesterman, 1979).
Aside from the Church, some forms of welfare were provided by private foundations, which set up almshouses, hospitals and so forth (Schweinitz, 1961). Trade guilds also provided some charitable assistance (Beier, 1983) (these guilds were also involved in providing mutual insurance, which existed even at this time amongst merchant and craft guilds, as a precursor of the 19th Century mutual insurance societies.) This secular welfare provision was to become more widespread through the 16th Century (Davis Smith, 1995) with the dissolution of the monasteries (discussed below) and the emergence of a new middle class.
The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed many of the most formalised institutional means for welfare provision by religious organisations. As Schweinitz (1961, p19) puts it;
“In 1536 and 1539 Henry VIII expropriated the monasteries and turned their properties over to his followers. This action, like the Black Death in the fourteenth century, gave dramatic point to an already bad situation. A social resource,
inadequate at its best, was now substantially diminished.”
However, the impact of the dissolution of the monasteries on the provision of welfare is not universally acknowledged, as Chesterman (1979, p15) suggests;
48 | P a g e
“the property of monasteries and chantries was already so little applied to social welfare, and the flow of funds to them had dried up to such an extent, that these measures made scarcely any difference to the overall scale of welfare provision.”
And the dissolution of the monasteries was accompanied by a trend away from donations being used for religious purposes (such as those noted above,) and towards more secular and ‘socially useful’ purposes such as the building of hospitals and schools and even perhaps on the creation of workhouses for the employment of the out of work. This had a significant impact, and it has been suggested that although philanthropic disposition may have declined between the reformation and the early 17th century, the volume used for socially useful purposes increased, because so much had previously been devoted to non-utilitarian religious purposes (Chesterman, 1979). As shall be explored in the following section, the dissolution of the monasteries may also have played a role in the creation of Britain’s first Poor Law, an attempt to ensure some kind of welfare provision for at least some of those people who needed it.
The 16th Century also saw a focus on the creation of a legal distinction between
‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. Although this distinction may be traced back to a 1349 prohibition on dispensing alms to able bodied beggars (or ‘vagabonds’) (Jordan, 1959) it was revived in 1495, when all local authorities were ordered to trace down vagabonds, place them in stocks and then send them on their way (Jordan, 1959) pressures on the ‘undeserving’ poor were increased throughout the century with the establishment of ‘harsh workhouses’ and the “stepping up of the severe penalties imposed on unlicensed begging and vagrancy” (Chesterman, 1979, p18) this distinction was affirmed in law in 1572 defining the difference between the ‘impotent poor’ and vagabonds’.
“Vagabondage and begging were outlawed under pain of whipping and boring through the ear for a first offence, unless the culprit would enter service for a period of one year, and then as a felony in the event of a third conviction”
Jordan (1959, p88)
49 | P a g e
At the same time, across the course of the 16th century, the ‘deserving’ poor were given some entitlements in law to welfare provision, initially (in 1531) by being given
entitlement to beg, then in 1536 by alms collected by “every preacher, parson, vicar, curate of this realm” who
“shall exhort, move, stir and provoke people to be liberal and bountifully to extend their good and charitable alms and contributions”
(Henry VIII, Statute, 1536)
By 1563, the collection of alms was legally enforceable; as Schweinitz put it;
“in 1563 the law moves from the social pressure of previous legislation to the use of police power as a means of securing contributions. Voluntary giving and giving upon the persuasion of the bishop having apparently failed, the law now inserts a
‘must’.”
Schweinitz (1961, p25)
Under a 1576 Act of Parliament, children could be set to work in houses of correction with ‘vagabonds’ (Beier, 1983), from 1597, provisions were made for poor children to be apprenticed (Beier, 1983).
These statutory provisions were essentially finalised by acts of 1597-1598 and of 1601, which created the ‘Poor Law’ which would remain in its basic form for three hundred years (Schweinitz, 1961).
It may well be argued that the Poor Law was, at least in part, an attempt to reformalise welfare in the place of the similar assurances the church had given to provide welfare under church law, which had been undermined by the dissolution of the monasteries.
However, it may be argued that this intervention was more primarily connected with increased numbers of severely impoverished people, associated more with economic causes than the dissolution of the monasteries- most notably higher rents and prices, and enclosures of common land (Gray, 1905). Bruce (1961, p25) suggests that it was “the
50 | P a g e
triad of wet summers and bad harvests between 1594 and 1597, with food riots in 1596, that brought the Poor Law in its final form”. As Fraser (1984) points out, as would be found repeatedly across the second half of the last millennium, it was in periods such as this, when social disorder may have been threatened by large numbers of severely poor people, that the state involved itself, in one way or another, with the treatment of the poor.
The Poor Law created fundamental differences in philanthropy in England to many continental European countries at the time, which had no such counterpart and where if taxes were used to provide relief it would be as a temporary expedient (Cunningham and Innes, 1998) Whilst English philanthropy still remained the major force in welfare until the twentieth century, the Poor Law showed, not necessarily the first, but certainly an early and marked intention to assert some kind of state involvement in the field.
However, in the initial period of its existence, the Poor Law was unpopular and not regularly invoked, parishes relying instead on charitable donations to poor relief, as Jordan (1959) puts it;
“these rates were extremely unpopular and they were most difficult to raise until time and experience had established local habits and until innumerable judicial decisions had fixed the pattern of their administration. In almost every parish where rates were levied there was a swarm of angry and outraged complaints regarding the rating methods, the probity of overseers, and urgent denials that the poor were not already well provided.”
Jordan (1959, p141)
Rather than the Poor Law, the vast majority of welfare was provided by un-coerced, philanthropy aided by the emerging wealthy middle class. Jordan (1959, p140) estimates, based on a survey of 10 counties, that;
“…in no year prior to 1660 was more than 7 percent of all the vast sums expended on the care of the poor derived from taxation.”
51 | P a g e
This philanthropy took the form of a mixture of non-organisational and organisational based giving. ‘Non-organisational’ giving includes contributions as personal donations in the form of apprenticeships and doles directly to the poor from the donor. For example Slack (1988) suggests that around 80 percent of gifts to the poor by will before 1650 took the form of outright doles (cited in Davis Smith, 1995, p12). However philanthropy from the late 16th century onwards also increasingly involved ‘organisational’ philanthropy through the establishment of Third Sector secular institutions, with the widespread establishment of workhouses, hospitals and schools. Encouraged by corporate trends in the associative ownership of stock (such as the South Sea Trading company,) such organisational or ‘associative’ philanthropy saw continued growth through the 18th century, as Owen (1964) puts it:
“Although they continued to give or leave considerable sums of money as individuals, they also discovered increasing merit in collective activity. Inspired, very likely, by the joint stock business ventures of their age, groups of Englishmen arranged to pool their efforts in voluntary societies dedicated to mitigating particular evils, or accomplishing special charitable aims.”
Owen (1964, p3)
This trend continued through the course of the 19th century, when associative forms of philanthropy (the TSO) ‘ran riot’ with “vast numbers of small, sometimes ephemeral, societies for every conceivable purpose” (Owen, 1964, p181). Owen (1964) attributes a number of reasons for this, including the breaking up of existent organisations, an apparent desire to “create a society whenever convinced of a job to be done” and “the emergence of new social needs” which came about as a result of the pressures of Victorian industrialisation and urbanisation.
Alongside these developments in the structures of Third Sector Organisations, change was also occurring within the Poor Law system. At the start of the century, state
provision for the poor was still provided under the old Elizabethan Poor Law (Jones, 1991) with parish poor relief subsidised by charitable giving. However, the centuries old system
52 | P a g e
came under a lot of pressure during the course of the century. It was felt by many, that poor relief encouraged irresponsibility, including (according to the economist Malthus,) irresponsible breeding (Jones, 1991). Much unemployment was seen as voluntary and could be reduced by encouraging able-bodied men to find work (Thane, 1978). As a result of this, by the middle of the century the old Poor Law system had been replaced by a new and notoriously repressive system of dealing with poverty, through the Poor Law
Amendment Act of 1834.
The act renewed focus on the distinction between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor (which has already been discussed with reference to the development of the Poor Law in the 16th century, and is of continued importance in the present day). The ‘deserving’ poor including the sick, elderly, and children “could not be expected to support themselves by work, and could not be described as work-shy dependents upon the public purse.”
(Thane, 1978, p29) These people would be granted a dole with which they could support themselves (Thane, 1978). However, in order to discourage the seeking of relief by the not truly destitute, the able bodied poor would not be able to claim ‘outdoor relief’ but would rather face the ‘workhouse test’, only being able to claim relief if they entered the workhouse (Roberts, 1963) where conditions were made so rigorous that “no-one would voluntarily seek it in preference to work” (Thane, 1978, p29) and they faced “insufficient diets, the separation of husband from wife, and constant incarceration” (Roberts, 1963, p98). Reforms to the law made it more humane from 1848 (Jones, 1991). However, for lack of an alternative, the basic structure remained the same for several decades afterwards (Jones, 1991).
This re-focussing of poor relief provision was not restricted to poor relief provision from the State under the Poor Law. A similar ‘problem’ was perceived with regard to
charitable giving, and in response, in the second half of the 19th century, the Charitable Organisation Society (COS) was formed with the intention of reorganising philanthropic efforts by (as they put it in their first annual report) providing “machinery for
systematizing, without unduly controlling, the benevolence of the public” (Charity Organisation Society 1869, p6; cited in Owen 1964, p221). It was the view of COS that rises in poverty in the 1860s were the result of ‘lax’ implementation of the Poor Law, and of ‘indiscriminate almsgiving’ (Owen, 1964, p217). It has been argued that their ‘harsh’
53 | P a g e
and rigid’ approach to the poor, has given not just themselves, but perhaps Victorian philanthropy more generally, something of ‘a bad name’ (Jones, 1991).
In reality 19th century poverty was considerably more complicated than this picture of
‘idleness’ amongst the undeserving poor may suggest. Low pay amongst both men and women, irregular employment and unemployment in certain periods, old age, disability and desertion of women by their husbands, were all significant factors leading to Victorian poverty (Thane, 1996).
The approach of both the COS and the ‘Poor Law’ reformers may be seen as a ‘muddled’
rather than ‘malevolent’ approach (Jones, 1991) caused by the need to deal with
complicated issues of an unprecedented kind (Jones, 1991). Regardless of the reasons for it, the approach made scapegoats of the poor, framing them as lazy and dependent;
where there existed more pernicious problems (such as those outlined above) causing poverty in Victorian England. The main cause of 19th century poverty was not
unregulated charity, but, as Beatrice Webb put it;
“A deeper and more continuous evil than unrestricted and unregulated charity, namely, unrestricted and unregulated capitalism…”
Webb (19793, p207)
However, not everyone in Victorian society felt that poor relief encouraged
irresponsibility, or that the Poor Law was applied too laxly, and through the 19th century, groups were also being set up to campaign for more generous provision for the poor by the State. These early poverty campaign groups included the Fabian Society, which favoured gradual political reform towards socialist ends (Thane, 1996). The Fabians Sydney and Beatrice Webb, lobbied politicians and civil servants for increased relief to help reduce poverty amongst those in need (Thane, 1996).
In addition, protest about poverty was increasingly expressed by the poor themselves.
Certainly by the 1880s, there was increased activity amongst the working classes in
3 originally published 1926
54 | P a g e
economic and political issues (Thane, 1996) and, particularly at times of economic
depression, such as 1878-79 and 1884-87 (Thane, 1996) social unrest. Towards the end of the century, concerns about militancy resulting from unemployment, combined with inadequate charitable support to relieve the unemployed poor, led to some Government recognition that charity was not sufficient to deal with unemployment (Thane 1996).
Towards the end of the century, Parliament introduced a number of reforms aimed at providing increased state provision of welfare (beyond the Poor Laws). By 1900 “central government action on recognised social problems was greater than 1870 but still slight in contrast with the magnitude of those problems and of the range of demands for action.”
(Thane, 1996, p42)
2. 19th century responses to Child Poverty:
As noted in the introduction, it has been argued that in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, childhood was ‘invented’ as a cultural category and that prior to this the child was seen as a ‘little adult’ (Bellingham, 1988). As a result, it is not surprising that amongst Victorian concerns about the poor, child poverty emerged as a particularly significant issue.
“Among the social tragedies which most terrified humane Victorians and challenged their sympathies was that of the grievously neglected child, the juvenile outcast of urban life, Oliver Twist and Joe the crossing sweeper”
Owen (1964, p145)
Through the course of the 19th century, and as part of wider issues about the impact of the environment on the urban poor, reformers were concerned about the “hostile and corrupting” conditions in which poor 19th century children grew up (Cockburn, 2000. p24).
There were particular concerns that unless ‘rescued’ such children would be drawn into a criminal career (Owen, 1964, p145).
55 | P a g e
As a result of these concerns about vulnerable children on the streets of British cities, a large number of organisations were set up to ‘rescue’ children, including Barnardo’s, the Waifs and Strays society, the Catholic and Jewish Rescue Societies, Methodist street-children’s missions and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Cockburn, 2000, p25). Where Victorian society emphasised self-reliance for adults, poor children were often viewed as incompetent to deal with their circumstances, and many programmes sought to remove them from city streets (Cockburn, 2000).
As in other areas of welfare for the poor, State intervention in the care of children grew in the latter half of the 19th century. From the 1870s there was a move away from the notion that children were solely the responsibility of parents and that there should be no state intervention in this relationship (Thane, 1996). For instance, the Factory Acts included help for children lacking adequate family support (Thane, 1996).