No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 10 September 2018
The regulation of poor migrants increasingly became a problem for local governments in eighteenth-century West Flanders and Flandres Maritime. Conflicts arose about which parish migrants should address for requesting poor relief. Migrants moreover physically moved over the boundaries of the different national French and Flemish legislative systems. This article will analyse how local parishes dealt with these problems in practice by focusing on a local agreement: the Concordat of Ypres of 1750. This Concordat offers an abundance of archival material and provides a unique insight into the practices of settlement and poor relief in continental Ancien Régime Europe. The aim of the article is to understand how out-parish relief functioned within the agreement. With that aim in mind, I will analyse, inter alia, the micro practices of how out-parish relief was paid (for example, removal or out-parish relief), how it reached the poor and, more importantly, how the number, expenses on and spread of out-parish poor evolved through the years. This article strengthens the claim that extensive relief practices were not unique to England and Wales. It also provides further insights into the relations between rural and urban areas (as most migration and settlement literature had either an urban or a rural focus) and sheds light on the differences of interests between local and central administrations.
1. In Dutch, these local relief institutions were called ‘armendis’; in French, ‘table des pauvres’, which both literally translate as ‘table of the poor’. Each parish had one poor table. The parish and the poor tables were worldly entities not necessarily governed by the church, but in practice the local priest often did play a role in the parish or poor table board. Sometimes the function of ‘dismeester’ (‘table master’, that is, head of the local poor relief institutions) was taken by the local priest, but this wasn't necessarily always the case.
2. Rijksarchief Brugge (RAB), Gemeenten. Bulskamp (TBO 49), 7: Rekeningen van de dis 1767–89; RAB, Gemeenten. Bulskamp (TBO 49), 8: Rekeningen van de dis 1791– 1800.
3. This does not imply that everyone was aware of their settlement status, nor were the institutions. Rather, settlement was the legal status of eligibility for relief in a certain parish, a status that only became relevant when an individual applied for relief. See also Snell, K. D. M., Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales, 1700–1950 (Cambridge 2006), pp. 81–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4. Taylor, J. S., ‘A different kind of Speenhamland: nonresident relief in the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of British Studies, 30:2 (1991), 183–208 (184–5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. King, S., ‘“It is impossible for our vestry to judge his case into perfection from here”: managing the distance dimensions of poor relief, 1800–40’, Rural History, 16:2 (2005), 161–89 (164)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. Ibid., 164.
7. Hindle, S., On the Parish? The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c. 1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. Taylor, ‘A different kind of Speenhamland’; King, ‘“It is impossible”’.
9. On the micro-level of decision-making at the individual level, on the other hand, factors such as morality, kinship, friendship and belonging played a large role. See also King, ‘“It is impossible”’ for examples of this kind.
10. Taylor, ‘A different kind of Speenhamland’.
11. Winter, A. and Lambrecht, T., ‘Migration, poor relief and local autonomy: settlement policies in England and the southern Low Countries in the eighteenth century’, Past & Present, 218:1 (2013), 91–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lambrecht, T., ‘Agrarian Change, Labour Organization and Welfare Entitlements in the North Sea Area, c. 1650–1800’, in King, S. and Winter, A., eds, Migration, Settlement and Belonging in Europe, 1500s–1930s: Comparative Perspectives (New York, 2013)Google Scholar.
12. See, for example, Andreas Gestrich, ‘Trajectories of German Settlement Regulations: The Prussian Rhine Province, 1815–1914’, in King and Winter, eds, Migration, Settlement and Belonging in Europe, pp. 250–68; Linn Spross, ‘The Dangers of a Free Labour Market: Poor Relief, Mobility and Regulations in Sweden during the 19th Century', unpublished paper presented at the European Social Science History Conference, Belfast, 2018.
13. For more information on Bulskamp and the agricultural capitalism of coastal Flanders, see Vandewalle, P., De Kasselrij Geschiedenis-instellingen -economie- cartografie (Veurne, 2016), pp. 23–6, 323–7Google Scholar; Lambrecht, ‘Agrarian Change’.
14. Lambrecht, ‘Agrarian Change’; E. Thoen, ‘Social Agrosystems’ as an Economic Concept to Explain Regional Differences. An Essay Taking the Former County of Flanders as an Example (Middle Ages–19th Century), in Landholding and Land Transfer in the North Sea Area (Late Middle Ages–19th century), CORN Publication Series, 5 (Turnhout 2004); K. Dombrecht, ‘Plattelandsgemeenschappen, lokale elites en ongelijkheid in het Vlaamse kustgebied (14de–16de eeuw): case-study: Dudzele ambacht’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Ghent University, 2014); Vandewalle, De Kasselrij Veurne.
15. The first account saved dates back to 17th April 1768. The last survived account was made on 29 vendemiaire year 12, or in the end of September 1803. Even in the French period, the accounts were still biennial. See RAB, Bulskamp, 7 & 8.
16. Winter and Lambrecht, ‘Migration, poor relief and local autonomy’, 115.
17. RAB, Bulskamp, 7 & 8.
18. This does slightly colour the analysis, as one does not have precise annual numbers but rather for two-year periods starting in April and ending in the same month two years later. I have stayed faithful to the sources, because it is impossible to find out at which date exactly relief was distributed to a certain poor person.
19. This is part of my ongoing doctoral research project on the Concordat of Ypres, 2015–19. This PhD project is funded by IUAP 7/26 ‘City and Society in the Low Countries (1200-1850) and the Flemish Research Council FWO.
20. This would require a comparison of the account books with censuses to gather more information on the individuals, something outside the scope of this article.
21. P. van Bree and G. Kessels, nodegoat (2013): a web-based data management, network analysis and visualisation environment, <http://nodegoat.net> from LAB1100, <http://lab1100.com>.
22. See M. Schepers, ‘Welfare and the Regulation of Labour Mobility: The Concordat of Ypres, 1750–1789’, unpublished conference paper presented at European Social Science History Conference, Vienna, 2016.
23. Although France did not (yet) have universal settlement legislation, the region of northern France did have legislation on settlement that dated back to 1732.
24. Schepers, ‘Welfare and the Regulation of Labour Mobility’, p. 12.
25. Stadsarchief Veurne, Oud Archief Veurne, 1122: Armenwezen. Varia betreffende armenwezen, 1614–1751, Letter from mayor of Wervick to the board of the chatellany of Furnes, 9th September 1763.
26. Lambrecht, ‘Agrarian Change’; Claire Gyssels and Lieve Van Der Straeten, Bevolking, arbeid en tewerkstelling in West-Vlaanderen: 1796–1815 (Leuven, 1986), pp. 95–8.
27. These were some of the main reasons the Concordat was created, but the motives were more complex. The parishes wanted to limit the increasing conflicts of individuals by installing a regulation that was more explicit than the central legislation. Moreover, the Concordat was a cross-border agreement, as northern France and West Flanders had relatively high levels of mobility and especially high levels of conflicts over poor migrants. In addition to the aforementioned free mobility, return to the birth place upon destitution, and abolition of warranty letters, the Concordat also contained regulations addressed at common ‘problem cases’ such as widows, orphans and children born out of wedlock, who followed the status of their deceased husband or father, or (in the case of children born out of wedlock) of their mother. Aside from creating more coherent regulation, the Concordat members also considered the ensured reciprocity as one of the main advantages of this agreement, especially because it concerned parishes from different states. The Concordat thus formed a local agreement, which no longer litigated conflicts in court but rather insisted that members solve issues internally through correspondence. It was a multilateral agreement without a central coordinating entity. For more information on the creation of the Concordat, see Schepers, ‘Welfare and the Regulation of Labour Mobility’.
28. Taylor, ‘A different kind of Speenhamland’.
29. Dalle, D., De bevolking van Veurne-Ambacht in de 17de en de 18de eeuw (Brussels, 1963), pp. 31–2, 219, 466Google Scholar. See also Bonenfant, Paul, Le problème du pauperisme en Belgique à la fin de l'Ancien Régime (Brussels, 1934)Google Scholar.
30. See, for example, French, H., ‘How dependent were the “dependent poor”? Poor relief and the life-course in Terling, Essex, 1762–1834’, Continuity and Change, 30:2 (2015), 193–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, S., ‘Poor relief, labourers’ households and living standards in rural England, c. 1770–1834: a Bedfordshire case-study’, Economic History Review, 58:3 (2005), 485– 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31. The 3.43 multiplier derived from the census of 1796 largely corroborates the multiplier calculated on the basis of the poor families’ sizes as can be calculated from a local census of 1759: Dalle, De bevolking van Veurne-Ambacht, pp. 31–2; Bevolkingstelling jaar IV, STREAM project (Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel).
32. N. van den Broeck, T. Lambrecht and A. Winter, ‘Preindustrial Welfare between Regional Economies and Local Regimes: Rural Poor Relief in Flanders around 1800’, unpublished paper presented at ESSHC, Vienna, 2016, pp. 15–16.
33. Based on immigration data (total number of individual immigrants) of the 1771 ‘vremde cortsittende personen’ accounts and population data (total number of inhabitants) of the population enquiry of the French Regime in year IV (1795–6). Sources: Dalle, De bevolking van Veurne-Ambacht, appendix XIV; see also SAV, OA, 320: ‘Lijste van vremde cortsittende personen’; Bevolkingstelling jaar IV, STREAM project Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Universiteit Gent.
34. ‘Foreign’ indicated an immigrant from a different parish, not necessarily an immigrant from a different country; see also Snell, K. D. M., ‘The culture of local xenophobia’, Social History, 28:1 (2003), 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35. Dalle, De bevolking van Veurne-Ambacht, appendix XIV; see also Stadsarchief Veurne, Oud Archief Veurne, 320: ‘Lijste van vremde cortsittende personen gemaeckt uyt crachte ende omme te voldoen aenden camerbrief vanden 2 october 1771’.
36. See Rosental, P. A., Les sentiers invisibles: Espaces, familles et migrations dans la France du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1999)Google Scholar.
37. Lucassen, J., Naar de kusten van de Noordzee: Trekarbeid in Europees perspectief, 1600–1900 (Gouda, 1984)Google Scholar.
38. He did, however, suggest that the levels of labour migration represented in the enquiry were not sufficient to meet the needs of the labour market in West Flanders, and suggested that there were high levels of internal labour mobility within this region. Lucassen, Naar de kusten van de Noordzee, p. 308.
39. Lambrecht, ‘Agrarian Change’.
40. An illustration of this evolution through time has not been added in this article. The selected illustrations only show all the different residences of the out-parish poor throughout the years plotted on one map.
41. It occasionally occurred that Bulskamp was mentioned as place of residence, whereas most in-parish poor simply had no mention of place of residence. The mention of for example ‘Joannes Breynaert tot Bulscamp’ was however always combined with an entry of a family member resident elsewhere, in this case, for example, ‘Frans Breynaert tot Veurne’. The mention of Bulskamp thus seems to relate to individuals who formed part of split families of which one or more family members were resident outside of Bulskamp parish.
42. Anderson, M., ‘Urban migration in nineteenth-century Lancashire: some insights into two competing hypotheses’, Annales de Démographie Historique, 1 (1971), 13–26Google Scholar.
43. D. Vandaele, ‘Armenzorg op het platteland: de armendis te Loker, 1728–1754’ (unpublished Master's thesis, Ghent University, 2001), p. 53; Vandenbroecke, C., Sociale geschiedenis van het Vlaamse volk (Nijmegen, 1981), p. 90Google Scholar.
44. Lambrecht, ‘Agrarian Change’.
45. Rosental, ‘Les sentiers invisibles’; See also Hufton, O. H., The Poor of Eighteenth-Century France, 1750–1789 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 69–107Google Scholar, especially Map 1: The incidence of seasonal migration in France in 1810, p. 75.
46. Schepers, Marjolein, ‘Van zieke viskoper tot arme vreemdeling: Mobiliteit en armenzorg in West-Vlaanderen op de drempel van het revolutietijdvak’, Jaarboek De Achttiende Eeuw (2017), 39–52Google Scholar.
47. Schepers, ‘Welfare and the Regulation of Labour Mobility’, p. 12.
48. The accounts included more general expenses than those that have been taken into calculation here, such as expenses related to the management of the land and estates owned by the poor tables.
49. RAB, Bulskamp, 7; Ibid., 8.
50. Although these price levels remained relatively stable throughout the eighteenth century, if we focus solely on the 1780s and 1790s, the grain price does increase a little, which indicates inflation. See Vandewalle, De Kasselrij Veurne.
51. King, ‘“It is impossible”’, 165.
52. Taylor, J. S., ‘“Set down in a large manufacturing town”: sojourning poor in early-nineteenth-century Manchester’, Manchester Region History Review, 3:2 (1989–90), 3–8 (2)Google Scholar.
53. Stadsarchief Veurne (SAV), Oud Archief (OA), 1118, ‘Projet d'un nouveau règlement pour l'entretien des pauvres, dans la province de Flandres’, 6th March 1773.
54. See M. Schepers, ‘Should they stay or should they go now? The discretionary character of poor relief, settlement and removal in the Low Countries’, BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review (forthcoming, 2018).
55. Algemeen Rijksarchief Brussel, Archief van de Geheime Raad, Cartons 1285A, Folder 2.3, ‘Reglement concernant l'entretien des pauvres’, 6th June 1750.
56. SAV, OA, 1122: Armenwezen. Varia betreffende armenwezen, 1614–1751, Letter from mayor of Wervick to the board of the chatellany of Furnes, 9th September 1763.
57. See Marjolein Schepers, ‘Van zieke visverkoper tot arme vreemdeling’.
58. SAV, OA, 235: Briefwisseling van de magistraat met de onderscheidene parochies wegens onderstand & onderhoud der behoeftigen, 1746–92.
59. SAV, OA, 344: Ordonnantien 1751–62, Circulaire Camerbrief 16th February 1752.
60. RAB, Bulskamp, 7, Accounts of 1780–2.
61. RAB, TBO 46: Gemeenten. Adinkerke, 1: Beraadslagingen van het disbestuur 1763–83.
62. RAB, Gemeente Nieuwpoort Oud Archief, 3230: Den Heiligen Geest of Armendis. Briefwisseling (1724–91), Letter from Herzeeuw Parish to the poor table of Nieuwpoort, s.d.; See also Schepers, ‘Van zieke visverkoper’ for an in-depth analysis of a conflict concerning Johannes van Laethem in the 1790s.
63. SAV, OA, 235, Letter from the chatellany of Bergues St Winoc to chatellany of Furnes, 14th June 1771; Ibid., Letter from chatellany of Furnes to the parish of Houtem, 21st October 1771; Letter from chatellany of Furnes to the parish of Houtem, 21st October 1771.