Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:46:28.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiating a Living: Essex Pauper Letters from London, 1800–1834

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

Thomas Sokoll
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Research undertaken over the last generation has greatly enhanced our understanding of the survival strategies of the labouring poor in early modern Europe. Under economic conditions where poverty was endemic, most families were forced to take to various forms of work and to draw on whatever forms of income were available. Whether among small peasants, proto-industrial producers, landless labourers or casual workers, their mere subsistence depended on the effort of as many family members as possible. Women's and children's work were the norm well into the nineteenth century, and their contribution to the family income greater than previously assumed. There were, nevertheless, many who could not make ends meet. The reasons for which people had to turn to others for help are legion: structural, cyclical or seasonal unemployment and underemployment; insufficient earnings and debts; illness and accidents; death within the family. A lot of assistance was informal and went through networks of kinship, neighbourhood and local community. Friendly societies provided rudimentary forms of collectively-organized support. Some state or municipal agencies supplying poor relief and charitable institutions offered assistance of various types, but most of it was meagre and combined with social control of the clients. It is no wonder, therefore, that many people took to begging, prostitution or petty crime.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 45 , supplement S8: Household strategies for survival 1600–2000: fission, factions and cooperation , December 2000 , pp. 19 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 2000

References

1. Gutton, Jean-Pierre, La société et Ies pauvres en Europe (xrve-xville siècles) (Paris, 1974)Google Scholar ; Hufton, Olwen, The Poor of Eighteenth-Century France 1750-1789 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar ; Lis, Catharina and Soly, Hugo, Poverty and Capitalism in Pre-Industrial Europe, rev. edn (Brighton, 1982)Google Scholar ; Hunecke, Volker, “Überlegungen zur Geschichte der Armut im vorindustriellen Europa”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 9 (1983), pp. 480–512Google Scholar ; Woolf, Stuart, The Poor in Western Europe in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries (London, 1986)Google Scholar ; Leeuwen, Marco D.H. van, “Logic of Charity: Poor Relief in Preindustrial Europe”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24 (1994), pp. 589–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; June, Robert, Poverty and Deviance in Early Modem Europe (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar.

2. Previous advances include Tilly, Louise A., “Individual Lives and Family Strategies in the French Proletariat”, Journal of Family History, 4 (1979), pp. 137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Lis, Catharina and Soly, Hugo, “Total Institutions' and the Survival Strategies of the Labouring Poor in Antwerp, 1770-1860”, in Mandler, Peter (ed.), The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia, PA, 1990), pp. 38–67Google Scholar ; Lynn Hollen Lees, “The Survival of the Unfit: Welfare Policies and Family Maintenance in Nineteenth-Century London”, in Ibid., pp. 68-91 ; Woolf, Stuart (ed.), Domestic Strategies: Work and Family in France and Italy 1600-1800 (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Lis, Catharina and Soly, Hugo, Disordered Lives: Eighteenth-Century Families and Their Unruly Relatives (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar ; Hitchcock, Timet al. (eds), Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640-1840 (London, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Lees, Lynn Hollen, The Solidarities of Strangers: The English Poor Laws and the People, 1700-1948 (Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar , chs 5 and 6.

3. Sokoll, Thomas (ed.), Essex Pauper Letters, 1731-1837, Records of Social and Economic History, new series (Oxford, in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. G., S. and Checkland, E.O.A. (eds), The Poor Law Report of1834 (Harmondsworth, 1974), p. 334Google Scholar . The best survey of the contemporary literature remains Poynter, J. R., Society and Pauperism: English Ideas on Poor Relief, 1795-1834 (London, 1969)Google Scholar.

5. Berg, Maxine and Hudson, Pat, “Rehabilitating the Industrial Revolution”, Economic History Review, 45 (1992), pp. 24–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Horrel, Sara and Humphreys, Jane, “Old Questions, New Data, and Alternative Perspectives: Families' Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution”, Journal of Economic History, 52 (1992), pp. 849–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem et idem, “Women's Labour Force Participation and the Transition to the Male-Breadwinner Family, 1750-1865”, Economic History Review, 48 (1995), pp. 89-117 ; Feinstein, Charles, “Pessimism Perpetuated: Real Wages and the Standard of Living in Britain during and after the Industrial Revolution”, Journal of Economic History, 58 (1998), pp. 625–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For a nuanced summary, see Daunton, M. J., Progress and Poverty: An Economic and Social History of Britain 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995), pp. 420–446Google Scholar ; and for a perceptive statement of the optimistic case, Linden, Peter H., “Unequal Living Standards”, in Floud, Roderick and McCloskey, Donald (eds), The Economic History of Britain since 1700, 2nd edn, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 357–386Google Scholar.

6. Solar, Peter M., “Poor Relief and English Economic Development before the Industrial Revolution”, Economic History Review, 48 (1995) p. 122CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; , Linden, “Unequal living standards”, pp. 382–383Google Scholar.

7. Blaug, Mark, “The Poor Law Report Re-examined”, Journal of Economic History, 24 (1964), pp. 229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, “The Myth of the Old Poor Law and the Making of the New”, Journal of Economic History, 23 (1963), pp. 151-184 ; Williams, Karel, From Pauperism to Poverty (London, 1981), Tables 4.1 and 4.2, pp. 148–150Google Scholar ; Cole, W. A., “Factors in Demand 1700-80”, in Floud, Roderick and McCloskey, Donald (eds), The Economic History of Britain since 1700, 1st edn, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1981), vol. 1, p. 64Google Scholar ; , Linden, “Unequal living standards”, pp. 382–383Google Scholar.

8. Sokoll, Thomas, Household and Family Among the Poor: The Case of Two Essex Communities in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries (Bochum, 1993), pp. 124-130, 221–235Google Scholar ; Eastwood, David, Governing Rural England: Tradition and Transformation in Local Government 1780-1840 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 99–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Taylor, James Stephen, “The Impact of Pauper Settlement 1691-1834”, Past and Present, 74 (1976). pp. 41–74Google Scholar ; Slack, Paul, The English Poor Law, 1531-1782, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 27–31Google Scholar . For the erosion of service and apprenticeship since the late eighteenth century, see Snell, K. D. M., Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England, 1660-1900 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 67-103, 228–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. The traditional view goes back to contemporary authorities such as Adam Smith and was canonized by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in their classic study of the Poor Law: English Poor Law History. Part I: The Old Poor Law (London, 1927), pp. 314–349.Google Scholar

11. Clark, Peter and Souden, David (eds), Migration and Society in Early-Modem England (London, 1987)Google Scholar ; Kussmaul, Ann, “The Ambiguous Mobility of Farm Servants”, Economic History Review, 29 (1981), pp. 222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Redford, Arthur, Labour Migration in England, 1800-1850 (London, 1926Google Scholar ; repr. Manchester, 1964).

12. Landau, Norma, “The Laws of Settlement and Surveillance of Immigration in Eighteenth-Century Kent”, Continuity and Change, 3 (1988), pp. 391–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, “The Regulation of Immigration, Economic Structures and Definitions of the Poor in Eighteenth-Century England”, HistoricalJournal, 23 (1990), pp. 541-572 ; Snell, K.D.M., “Pauper Settlement and the Right to Poor Relief in England and Wales”, Continuity and Change, 6 (1991), pp. 375–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Landau, Norma, “The Eighteenth-Century Context of the Laws of Settlement”, Continuity and Change, 6 (1991), pp. 417–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Snell, K.D.M., “Settlement, Poor Law and the Rural Historian: New Approaches and Opportunities”, Rural History, 3 (1992), pp. 145–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Wells, Roger, “Migration, the Law, and Parochial Policy in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century Southern England”, Southern History, 15 (1993), pp. 86–139Google Scholar ; Song, Byung Khun, “Agrarian Policies on Pauper Settlement and Migration, Oxfordshire 1750-1834”, Continuity and Change, 13 (1998), pp. 363–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, “Landed Interest, Local Government, and the Labour Market in England, 1750-1850”,Economic History Review, 51 (1998), pp. 465-488.

13. , Slack, English Poor Law, p. 30.Google Scholar

14. , Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor, p. 18.Google Scholar

15. See Sokoll, Essex Pauper Letters, “Introduction”, ch. 2.

16. Taylor, James Stephen, Poverty, Migration and Settlement in the Industrial Revolution: Sojoumers' Narratives (Palo Alto, CA, 1989) is based on pauper letters from Cornwall, Devon and WestmorelandGoogle Scholar . The extraordinary sample from Westmoreland is also used in idem, “Voices in the Crowd: The Kirkby Lonsdale Township Letters, 1809-36”, in Hitchcock et. al., Chronicling Poverty, pp. 109-116. For the first fruits of research on Essex pauper letters, see Sokoll, Thomas, “Selbstver-ständliche Armut. Englische Armenbriefe, 1750-1850”, in Schulze, Winfried (ed.), Ego-Dokumente. Annäherungen an den Menschen in der Geschichte (Berlin, 1995), pp. 227–270Google Scholar ; Sharpe, Pamela, “‘The Bowels of Compation’: A Labouring Family and the Law, c. 1790-1834”, in , Hitchcocket al., Chronicling Poverty, pp. 87–108Google Scholar ; Thomas Sokoll, “Old Age in Poverty. The Record of Essex Pauper Letters, 1780-1834”, in Ibid., pp. 127-154.

17. For the sake of simplicity, all references to the Essex pauper letters are given in parentheses within the main text, by quoting the number of the piece within the edition (Sokoll, Essex Pauper Letters). The same holds for other parish records referred to, where the details will be found in the critical apparatus of the edition, under the respective letter. All records are kept at the Essex Record Office (ERO) in Chelmsford and die ERO branches at Colchester and Southend-on-Sea. The precise archival references of all sources quoted in the present article are also given in the edition.

18. For readers unfamiliar with the traditional monetary units (£1 = 20 shillings (s) = 240 pence (d)), modern decimal equivalents (£1 = 100 pence (p)) have been added in brackets after quotations of specific amounts of money.

19. For an extensive discussion of the questions involved in the source criticism of pauper letters, with particular emphasis on their importance for the social history of literacy, see the Introduction to Sokoll, Essex Pauper Letters.

20. Jones, Gareth Stedman, Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society (Oxford, 1971), pt. 1Google Scholar ; Hobsbawm, E.J., “The Nineteenth Century London Labour Market”, in Glass, Ruthet al., London: Aspects of Change (London, 1964), pp. 3–28, 12-13Google Scholar.

21. It is striking how “indigence” was distinguished from “poverty” in the Poor Law Report of 1834 (following Colquhoun). Indigent and hence worthy of assistance were those who were “unable to labour” or “unable to obtain, in return for his labour, the means of subsistence”, whereas the “pauper” had no claim, given that poverty was the natural “state of one who, in order to obtain a mere subsistence, is forced to have recourse to labour” (Poor Law Report, p. 334); see Colquhoun, Patrick, A Treatise on Indigence (London, 1806), p. 8Google Scholar.

21. The silence about basic features of family life even in autobiographies (and, for the more recent past, in oral history interviews) is a well-known problem to historians. See Vincent, David, “Love and Death and the Nineteenth-Century Working Class”, Social History, 5 (1980), pp. 226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; idem, Bread, Knowledge and Freedom: A Study of Nineteenth-Century Working Class Autobiography (London, 1981), pp. 40-46, and, with special reference to the family economy, pp. 62-86. For the difficulties of distilling contemporary notions of the family from literary works, see Tadmor, Naomi, “The Concept of the Household-Family in Eighteenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 151 (1996), pp. 111–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. For a more detailed account of the case of William James, see , Sokoll, “Old Age in Poverty”, pp. 144–145Google Scholar.

24. The case of the entire Hall family is described in detail by Sharpe, “Bowels of Compation”.

25. King, Peter, “Pauper Inventories and the Material Lives of the Poor in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, in , Hitchcocket al., Chronicling Poverty, pp. 178–183.Google Scholar

26. See Johnson, Paul, Saving and Spending: The Working-Class Economy in Britain 1870-1939 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 165–188.Google Scholar

27. , Feinstein, “Pessimism Perpetuated”, pp. 638–640.Google Scholar

28. Laslett, Peter; “Introduction”, in Laslett, Peter and Wall, Richard (eds), Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Hammel, E.-A. and Laslett, Peter, “Comparing Household Structure over Time and between Cultures”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (1974), pp. 73–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. For a thoughtful discussion of the provision for the elderly under the Old Poor Law, see Thane, Pat, “Old People and Their Families in the English Past”, in Daunton, Martin (ed.), Charity, Self-interest and Welfare in the English Past (London, 1996), pp. 113–138Google Scholar.

30. Slack, Paul, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988), p. 85.Google Scholar

31. Medick, Hans, “The Proto-Industrial Family Economy: The Structural Function of Household and Family during the Transition from Peasant Society to Industrial Capitalism”, Social History, 1 (1976), pp. 308–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For a general discussion of the demographic implications of such household arrangements, see , Sokoll, Household and Family Among the Poor, pp. 289–293Google Scholar ; Smith, Richard, “Charity, Self-interest and Welfare: Reflections from Demographic and Family History”, in Daunton, Charity, Self-interest and Welfare, pp. 23–50Google Scholar.

32. Poor Law Report of 1834, P. 115.

33. Parliamentary Papers, 1803-1804, XIII, Abstract of the Returns Relative to the Expense and Maintenance of the Poor, p. 108 (yearly workhouse expenses per inmate roughly £14). That figure, which refers to 1802, would appear to be a sound proxy, given that total poor relief expenditure in Essex (indoor plus outdoor relief) were roughly the same in both 1802 and 1821, amounting to £0.8 per head (which was relatively low in the long run). See Baugh, D.A., “The Cost of Poor Relief in South-East England, 1790-1834”, Economic History Review, 28 (1975) p. 56 (Fig. 3)Google Scholar.

34. For similar conclusions with respect to the actual practice of relief in London even under the New Poor Law, see , Lees, “Survival of the Unfit”, pp. 69-71, 87–88Google Scholar.