How did the elderly fare in welfare terms under the English New Poor Law?

Authors Avatar

Jennifer Sanders

How did the elderly fare in welfare terms under the English New Poor Law?

The passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834 coincided with the beginnings of the administrative Victorian political regime whereby meticulous attention to detail was a feature of both the work houses and the nascent welfare state. Unlike welfare relief during the Tudor, Elizabethan and Stuart eras, the Poor Law of the nineteenth century was considered a matter for state intervention, though not in the same way that we would understand state sponsored action today. Poor relief in Victorian England was intended as a deterrent rather than relief, and there is no doubt that the Great Reformers of the mid nineteenth century would be horrified at the state of twenty first century welfare state under New Labour. Yet in comparison to both contemporary foreign powers and the march of history, the New Poor Law was indeed a watershed in British social history, especially for the elderly, infirm and destitute. Political mechanisms took over the helm of welfare reform where the local Parish used to constitute the main official authority pertaining to the poor (‘out relief’). Theoretically, therefore, welfare was available to the entire population – old, young, male and female – as opposed to the geographic sensibilities of the Old Poor Law. In reality, however, the choice between the work houses and homelessness was rarely one of opinion.

For the purposes of this study, a chronological approach must be adopted to highlight how the New Poor Law evolved from its conception to the modern administrative monolith witnessed in the twentieth century. Through the lens of history, it will be seen that the term ‘welfare’ did not apply within the confines of the New Poor Law. By definition, the study must likewise chart, in particular, the fate of the elderly under the Poor Law although it should be noted that a more generic approach must at times be taken, especially when specific documentary evidence pertaining to the elderly is difficult to gauge. The broader concepts of ‘the poor’ and ‘the working class’ will thus be cited as a means of conveying the standard of living for the elderly within the title of the discussion. A conclusion will be sought once analysis has shown that concern for the aged is a relatively modern phenomenon, certainly in terms of the role of the state, which necessarily implies hardship for the elderly during the early modern industrial period.

First, a definition of the term ‘elderly’ must be attempted. In contemporary language, the term elderly would apply to anybody above the age of retirement in the UK: sixty for women and sixty five for men. However, in the early Victorian era, the concept of retirement meant nothing for the elderly, certain the elderly people who would require assistance from the New Poor Law. Moreover, life expectancy was remarkably different during the nineteenth century, certainly within the cross section of the population who would come under the broader administrative umbrella of the New Poor Law. Industrialisation was barely two generations old, which resulted in many male workers dying young and many female spouses forced into lives of poverty on industrial streets where life expectancy nose dived in tandem with living conditions. Therefore, in light of the above discrepancy between our modern understanding of the term ‘elderly’ and the realities of life during the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act, an educated estimate would calculate a figure of late fifties and early sixties as constituting the elderly within this study. Clearly, this topic is highly subjective and analysis of different work houses would reveal different figures for the inmates in terms of age and background. It is important to realise that the study will oscillate between varieties of the aged in order to present a more ordered composition of the reality of life under the New Poor Law. Furthermore, much of the following discussion will inevitably revolve around historical conjecture.

The trigger for reform of the state’s role in relation to the new working class poor was an essay written by famous English philanthropist, Thomas Malthus and it had direct reference to the implications for the demography of England in future generations. The Essay on the Principles of Population (1798) implied that rampant sexuality and a declining death rate would result in a broad common economic base of the populace who would necessarily drain the capital accrued by the state in demand of state sponsored support. It is important to note that his work and the subsequent social legislation passed during the 1830’s and 1840’s would not have existed without the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Poor relief and urbanisation are inseparable; a socio political explosion of the previous centuries of history. As the British social historian Paul Mantoux (1961:477) put it: “The industrial revolution is precisely the expansion of undeveloped forces, the sudden growth and blossoming of seeds which had for years lain hidden or asleep.”

It is also important to realise that poor relief was a unique feature in England, one that did not take place on the continent. There was no similar Poor Law in Europe, the reason being the secular nature of British society after the sixteenth century Reformation and the separation of Church and State, which meant that the parishes took over the helm in relation to welfare and poor relief in a way that the Catholic Church did not. Ironically, Malthus and contemporary commentators such as the French social analyst, Say (1828:398) blamed the very existence of the Old Poor Law for the burgeoning numbers of the English working classes at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Join now!

“There were scarcely any machines at the time of Queen Elizabeth and yet it was then that was felt necessary to bring in that law for the support of the poor which has only served to multiply them.”

There was, as a result, a contradictory state policy adopted which advocated structural assistance for the all elements of the nation’s poor yet one which was simultaneously advocated an officially policy of laissez faire, which preferred the poor to look after themselves. The concept of aid for the underprivileged was therefore haphazard and so it comes as no surprise to learn that ...

This is a preview of the whole essay