Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T17:31:27.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labourers are Revolting: Penalising the Poor and a Political Reaction in the Brixworth Union, Northamptonshire, 1875–1885

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2008

Elizabeth T. Hurren
Elizabeth T. Hurren
Affiliation:
Nene Centre for Research, University College, Northampton, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the nineteenth century one of the main issues that preoccupied central government policy-makers was how poverty should be dealt with, in order to reduce poor relief expenditure. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, as Karel Williams argues, aimed to introduce a general rule against out-door relief by substituting instead a workhouse test that sought to deter paupers with its axiom of ‘less eligibility’. In practice, as Williams explains, regulations only stipulated that a workhouse test was to be strictly applied in the case of able-bodied male applicants and this gave unions the discretion to award out-door relief to other types of pauper. For example a number of unions continued to grant small out-door relief allowances to the aged, widows and infirm on medical out-door relief orders. Others found that it was not possible to follow poor relief guide-lines because they did not have the workhouse capacity to relieve all pauper applicants before the 1860s. This was because a comprehensive administrative infrastructure was not put in place in most unions until after the passing of the Union Chargeability Act of 1865. Once workhouse capacity had been improved with the creation of dispensaries and new medical wards, central government expected out-door poor relief expenditure to decrease. Consequently, in 1870 concern was expressed when they calculated that only 15 per cent of paupers were relieved within workhouses. A new discourse on the causes of poverty, as outlined by organisations such as the Charity Organisation Society, demanded that stricter poor relief regulations should be implemented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Rural History , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 2000 , pp. 37 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Williams, Karel, From Pauperism to Poverty (London, 1981), p. 97.Google Scholar

2. There is an extensive historiography which discusses the implementation of the New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. The major texts that examine social policies after 1870 are Fraser, D., The Evolution of the British Welfare State (London, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fraser, D., Urban Politics in Victorian England (Leicester, 1978)Google Scholar; Williams, , From Pauperism, pp. 96–146Google Scholar; Rose, M. E., ‘The Crisis of Poor Relief in England, 1860–1900’ in Mommsen, W. J. and Mocks, W. (eds.), The Emergence of the Welfare State in Britain and Germany, 1850–1950 (London, 1981), pp. 50–70Google Scholar; Digby, A., ‘The Rural Poor’ in Mingay, G. E. (ed.), The Victorian Countryside: Volume Two (London, 1981), pp. 591–601Google Scholar; Thomson, D., ‘The Decline of Social Security: Falling State Support for the Elderly since Early Victorian Times’, Ageing and Society 4 (1984), 451–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mackinnon, M., ‘Poor Law Policy, Unemployment and Pauperism’, Explorations in Economic History 23 (1986), 299–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rose, M. E., The Relief of Poverty 1834–1914 (London, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mackinnon, M., ‘English Poor Law Policy and the Crusade against Outrelief’, Journal of Economic History 47 (1987), 603–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bellamy, C., Administering Central-Local Relations, 1871–1918 (Manchester, 1988)Google Scholar; Finlayson, G., Citizen, State and Social Welfare in Britain, 1830–1990 (Oxford, 1994):CrossRefGoogle ScholarThane, P., Foundations of the Welfare State (Harlow, 1996 edn.).Google Scholar

3. Williams, , From Pauperism, p. 98.Google Scholar

4. Williams, , From Pauperism, p. 104.Google Scholar

5. Thomson, D., ‘Workhouse to Nursing Home: Residential Care of Elderly People in England since 1840’, Ageing and Society 3 (1983), 43–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomson, D., ‘“I am not my father's keeper”: Families and the Elderly in Nineteenth Century England’, Law and History Review 2 (1984), 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Brixworth Union parochial lists, (Northampton, 1879), Sox 393, Spencer MS, Northamptonshire Record Office (hereafter NRO).

7. Mackay, T. (ed.), The Reminiscences of Albert Pell Sometime MP for South Leicestershire (London, 1908), pp. 8–28.Google Scholar

8. Gordon, P. (ed.), The Red Earl: The Papers of the 5th Earl Spencer, 1835–1910, Volume One (Northampton, 1981), pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

9. Brundage, A., ‘The Landed Interest and the New Poor Law: A Reappraisal of the Revolution in Government’, Economic History Review 87 (1972), 27–38.Google Scholar

10. Calverley, M., Out-Door Relief: A Study in Pauperisation. The Down-Grade. Occasional Papers of the Charity Organisation Society No. 23 (London, 1900), local studies collection, Leicester University library.Google Scholar

11. Brixworth Union parochial lists, Sox 393, Spencer MS, NRO.

12. Local Government Journal (25.5.1895), ZA 2246, NRO.Google Scholar

13. Brixworth Union guardian minute books. (1870–1873), PL 2/16, NRO.Google Scholar

14. see footnote 10 above.

15. Spencer, Bury to, 10.3.1874, K156, Althorp MS, British Library Manuscript Department (hereafter BLMD) – quoted with original spelling and emphasis.Google Scholar

16. Thomson, D., ‘The Welfare of the Elderly in the Past: A Family or Community Responsibility?’, in Felling, M. and Smith, R. (eds.), Life, Death and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives (London, 1991), p. 217.Google Scholar

17. Northampton Petty Session Records, Northampton Division, ML 44, V2911, NRO.Google Scholar

18. Thomson, , ‘The Welfare’, p. 200.Google Scholar

19. Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), MH 12/8699, Brixworth Poor Law Union Correspondence, (1871–1873), George Faulkener, Holcot Parish to Local Government Board, (19.4.1873). Quoted with original emphasis, phrasing and spelling.Google Scholar

20. PRO, MH 12/8699, internal memorandum on how best to reply to George Faulkener (April 1873).

21. Northamptonshire Guardian (5.8.1876).Google Scholar

22. Horn, P. L. R., ‘Northamptonshire Agricultural Labourers and the Quest for Allotments The 1870s’, Northamptonshire Past and Present 6, IV, (1971/1972), 372.Google Scholar

23. PRO, MH 12/8700, Brixworth Poor Law Union Correspondence (1874–1876) Charles Steven-son to LGB, (February 1874). There was a lengthy inter-departmental correspondence following Stevenson's complaint about NALU defence stratgies in Norfolk and Northamptonshire.

24. J. N. Beasley to Spencer, 27.3.1873, and C. Boyle to Spencer, 8.4.1872, documents local NALU activity and the reaction of farmers, Sox 571, Spencer MS, NRO.

25. Thomson, , ‘The Welfare’, pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

26. Report of the Brixworth Union Charities Committee (1875), 49p/46, NRO.Google Scholar

27. Spencer to Pell, 28.1.1877, K159, Althorp MS, BLMD.

28. Thomson, , ‘The Welfare’, p. 217.Google Scholar

29. Bury to Spencer, 15.1.1180, 11.11.1880, K382; Calverley to Bury, 1.12.1880, 8.3.1881, K144, Althorp MS, BLMD.

30. David Morton, Rector of Harlestone, to Brixworth Union board of guardians, 9.5.1878, Brixworth Union guardian minute book, (1878)Google Scholar, PL2/19, NRO. Quoted with original punctuation, spelling and emphasis; ‘Brixworth—Power of the Chairman Questioned’, Local Government Journal (27.7.1878), ZA 2246, NRO.Google Scholar

31. PRO, MH12/8701, Brixworth Poor Law Union correspondence, (1877–1879), Alfred Jeffrey Brixworth Union clerk to LGB, (July 1878).Google Scholar

32. PRO, MH 12/8701, ‘Petition by Rev. John Drake J.P., Mr Richard Lee Bevan J.P., Mr Francis Eady and Mr Francis Chevalier Jeyes all guardians of the poor in the Brixworth Union protesting against policy of having only one relieving officer’, (13.12.1879).

33. PRO, MH 12/8701, see memos by – ‘Southam, Lambert and The President’, (3.1.1879).

34. Bury to Spencer, 6.3.1883, K382, Althorp MS, BLMD.

35. Spencer hoped that ex-officio guardians would enthusiastically welcome the new scheme because the C.O.S. had recently been established in nearby Leicester. See Leicester Charity Organisation Society minute books (1876–1881), DE/2340, No. 1, Leicestershire Country Record office (hereafter LCRO); Martin, Janet D., The Leicestershire C.O.S., 1876–1976: A Contemporary Review (Leicester, 1976), L361.7, LCRO.Google Scholar

36. Bury to Spencer, (undated draft notes of a proposed speech at the inaugural meeting of the Secret Service Fund on 15.3.1882 in Northampton), K382, Althorp MS, BLMD. Quoted with original spelling and emphasis.

37. Unfortunately despite extensive research no detailed records of the Secret Service fund have come to light. John Morley, 5th Earl Spencer's land agent, recorded that Spencer paid an annual subscription of £10 to the fund. See Morley's financial statement of Earl Spencer's private accounts, 26.10.1895, Sox 551, Spencer Papers, NRO; Secret Service Fund Circular to Spencer, January 1894, K345, Althorp MS, BLMD.

38. Sidney Ward, a labourer from Brixworth parish, gave evidence in Ward, SidneyPP, Royal Commission on the Aged Poor (1894), questions 15764–15653, that Jeyes, the Guardian of the Brixworth parish, was asked by the Chairman to subscribe to the Secret Service Fund. Jeyes replied that he would contribute provided he was given a detailed explanation in writing of how the fund was administered. The Chairman returned Jeyes' cheque and withdrew his membership application.Google Scholar

39. Pell to Spencer, 3.2.1877, and Bury to Spencer, 7.2.1877, K159, Althorp MS, BLMD.

40. Rural labourers were disenfranchised in parliamentary elections until the Franchise Extension Acts of 1885 equalised county with borough qualifications. In poor law elections most labourers remained disenfranchised until the passing of the Local Government Act, 1894, which abolished property qualifications. See Keith-Lucas, B.The English Local Government Franchise (London, 1952), chapter 3, pp. 97–101 – this is still the standard text in its field.Google Scholar

41. PRO, MH 12/8701, Bury to LGB, 26.3.1877. Quoted with original emphasis.

42. Eastwood, D., ‘Rethinking Debates on the Poor Law in Early Nineteenth Century England’, Utilitas 6 (1994), 97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eastwood, D., Government and Community in the English Provinces, 1700–1870 (London, 1997), p. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Thane, P., ‘The Working Class State “Welfare” in Britain, 1880–1914’, Historical Journal 27 (1984), 892, maintains that ‘nowhere did working class voters flood out to support such social reforming candidates, or indeed any others’ in the late-nineteenth century. Thane has overlooked the impact of the crusade against out-relief in rural ‘model’ unions and the fact that working men did flood out to support candidates in favour of social welfare provision in guardian election contests.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Fraser, D., Ueban Politics, p. 30.Google Scholar

45. Garrard, J., ‘Parties, Members and Voters after 1867: A Local Study’, Historical Journal 20 (1977), 145–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garrard, J., Leadership and Power in Victorian Industrial Towns 1830–80 (Manchester, 1983)Google Scholar; Garrard, J., ‘Social History, Political History and Political Science: The Study of Power’, Journal of Social History 3 (1983), 105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Ryan, P., ‘Poplarism, 1894–1930’ in Thane, P. (ed.), The Origins of British Social Policy (London, 1978), pp. 56–83, examines the impact that the crusade had in urban East London unions.Google Scholar

47. ‘Brington, Harlestone, Brampton and Whilton NALU petition to the 5th Earl Spencer’, 27.3.1873, Sox 393, Spencer MS, NRO. Spencer reacted angrily against the petitioners refusing them permission to use local school-rooms for their union meetings.

48. Girdlestone, Canon, ‘The Farm Labourer’, Macmillan Magazine (1872), p. 261.Google Scholar

49. Horn, P. L. R., ‘Northamptonshire Agricultural Labourers’, 371Google Scholar; Horn, P. L. R., ‘Agricultural Labourers' Trade Unionism in Four Midland Counties, 1860–1900’, (unpublished Leicester University Ph. D. thesis, 1968), 204–5Google Scholar, gives details of NALU conditions in Northants; Dunbabin, J. P. D., ‘The Revolt in the Field: The Agricultural Labourers' Movement in the 1870s’, Past and Present, 26 (1963), 68–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Dunbabin, , ‘The Revolt’, p. 69.Google Scholar

51. PP, Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Elections of Poor Law Guardians in England, Scotland and Ireland, IV (1878), Appendix XVII, p. 268.Google Scholar

52. Snell, K. D. M., ‘Deferential Bitterness: The Social Outlook of the Rural Proletariat in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century England and Waves’ in Bush, M. L. (ed.), Social Orders and Social Classes since 1500: Studies in Social Stratification (London, 1992), p. 178.Google Scholar

53. Snell, , ‘Deferential bitterness’, p. 179.Google Scholar

54. Fraser, D., ‘The English Poor Law and the Origins of the British State’ in Mommsen, W. J. and Mock, W. (eds.), The Emergence of the Welfare State in Britain and Germany, 1850–1950 (London, 1981), p. 10.Google Scholar

55. My conclusion has used many of John Garrard's exemplary conceptual ideas about the nature of power in local authorities in the late-nineteenth century. See Garrard, , ‘Social History, Political History’, pp. 113–15.Google Scholar

56. Garrard, , ‘Social History’, p. 116.Google Scholar

57. Cannadine, D., The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy (London, 1996 edn.), pp. 13–15.Google Scholar

58. Garrard, ‘Social History’, p. 109.Google Scholar

59. Williams, , From Pauperism, p. 103.Google Scholar

60. Northamptonshire Mercury (3.3.1893).

61. Northamptonshire Mercury (1.3.1895). Out of a total population of 12, 186, 7,475 joined the association and 5,011 supported the retrenchment party.

62. Refer to this author's forthcoming thesis “The Bury-al” board: Penalising the Poor and Poor Law Politics in the Brixworth Union in Northamptonshire, 1870–1900'. The poor called the Brixworth Union ‘the “bury-al” board’. This was a wry comment on the retrenchment party's policies of trying to remove paupers from out-door relief registers by ignoring their impoverishment until they died of starvation, and a pun based on the Chairman's surname – Rev. W. Bury.