Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY
VOL XXIII JUNE I963 NO 2
The Myth of the Old Poor Law andthe Making of the New
NO MATTER which authority we consult on the English PoorLaws in the nineteenth century the same conclusions emerge the
Old Poor Law demoralized the working class promoted populationgrowth lowered wages reduced rents destroyed yeomanry and com-pounded the burden on ratepayers the more the Old Poor Law re-lieved poverty the more it encouraged the poverty which it relievedthe problem of devising an efficient public relief system was finallysolved with the passage of the harsh but salutary Poor Law Amend-ment Act of 1834 So unanimous are both the indictment and theverdict of historians on this question that we may forego the pleasureof citing chapter and verse
The bare facts are familiar enough Until late in the eighteenthcentury public relief was largely confined to those too young too oldor too sick to work But in 1782 Gilberts Act sanctioned the principleof relieving the so-called able-bodied without requiring them to enterthe workhouse Then in 1795 the magistrates of Speenhamland in thecounty of Berkshire responding to the expectional rise in the price ofwheat decided to fix a minimum standard by supplementing earnedincomes in proportion to the price of wheaten bread and the size ofworkers families The idea was soon imitated in adjoining countiesand in the following year it was ratified by Parliament The practice ofmaking allowances-in-aid-of-wages was almost always associated withmake-work schemes which rotated the unemployed among localfarmers in accordance with the rated value of their property Bydivorcing earnings from the productivity of labor the AllowanceSystem in conjunction with the Roundsman System sapped the initia-
ls
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
152 Mark Blaug
tive of agricultural workers and thus contributed to the unprecedentedrise in poor relief expenditures in the years before and after WaterlooSo ran the argument of the reformers of 1834 and so runs the concensusof modern opinion
History repeats itself says an ancient proverbmdashand historians repeateach other The standard analysis of the effects of the Old Poor Lawis derived without qualification from the Poor Law CommissionersReport of 1834 that brilliant influential and wildly unhistoricaldocument as Tawney once described it But it was a gross exaggerationthat led the reformers of 1834 to characterize the Old Poor Law asa bounty on indolence and vice and a universal system of pau-perism Only an incomplete theoretical analysis of the workings ofthe Speenhamland policy and a superficial examination of the factscould have produced so one-sided an interpretation The continuedendorsement of the Report of 1834 has seriously distorted the history ofthe Industrial Revolution in Britain The Old Poor Law tried to main-tain the real income of workers by tying wages to die cost of living itprovided unemployment compensation togetlier with a scheme topromote private employment and it coupled both of these to a familyendowment plan It is not often realized that the kind of argumentswhich are used to condemn the Old Poor Law per se would equallycondemn most modern welfare legislation Perhaps diis is the inten-tion but even left-wing historians such as the Webbs and the Ham-monds have attacked the Old Poor Law on the one hand and on theother have argued that minimum wage legislation accompanied bychildren allowance payments would have been a preferable alternativeto Speenhamland But in fact their proposal amounts to nearly thesame thing as the Old Poor Law
The years between 1813 and the accession of Victoria have beenaptly described as the blackest period of English farming When weput together everything we know about the causes of agriculturaldistress in those years we will have grounds more relative thanmaladministration of the Poor Laws to account for the growth of reliefexpenditures This is not merely an academic question In the Victorianera the whole of what we would nowadays call social services werereflected in poor-law expenditures And the Report of 1834 with itsstrictures on the old system was revered for three generations as acanonical book teaching that all forms of dole charity and relief to theunemployed are suspect because they only induce him to breed inidleness that least relief is best relief and that voluntary charity is
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 153
always preferable to public aid because it is somehow capable of dis-criminating the deserving poor from the undeserving Withoutthe continued influence of the principles of 1834 Mrs Jellyby is un-thinkable
I
Before looking at the empirical evidence let us consider what resultsmight be expected from a system of subsidizing wages considered byitself Most historians assume without question that the AllowanceSystem must have depressed agricultural earnings farmers could payless than competitive rates because the parish officers were forced tomake up the deficit But what if the guaranteed subsidy made workersless willing to supply effort It is elementary economics that the short-run effect of a subsidy to workers is to lessen the supplymdashthe number ofdays per week offered by men women and children if die supply curveof labor is positively sloped the result is that wages will rise Ofcourse if the subsidy is tied to the size of the family it may promoteearlier marriages and more children so that within a decade or soit does depress wages To a generation drunk on Malthusian wine thepopulation argument seemed irrefutable But nowadays we are in-clined to treat diis type of reasoning with more skepticism particularlyif the subsidy is modest in amount increases less than proportionatelywith each additional child and is continuously scaled down year afteryear as we shall see all three things were true under the Old PoorLaw1
It is possible to argue however that the Allowance System depressedwages even if it did not stimulate the growdi of population A subsidythat varies inversely with earned wages and diat is what the AllowanceSystem amounted to gives workers no incentive to supply genuineeffort And since employers are not the only taxpayers the system like-
1 Alfred Marshall testifying in 1893 before the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor de-plored the persistence of Malthusian thinking among laymen and illustrated the evolution ofprofessional economic opinion in the nineteenth century in these words Suppose you couldconceive a Mad Emperor of China to give to every English working man half-a-crown fornothing according to the current notions as far as I have been able to ascertain them thatwould lower wages because it would enable people to work for less I think that nineeconomists out of ten at the beginning of the century would have said that that would lowerwages Well of course it might increase population and that might bring down wages butunless it did increase population the effect according to the modern school would be to raisewages because the increased wealth of the working classes would lead to better living morevigorous and better educated people with greater earning power and so wages would riseThat is the centre of the difference Official Papers (London Macmillan and Co 1926) p 249
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
154 Mark Blaug
wise deprives those who hire labor of the incentive to exact a full dayswork In consequence productivity declines output shrinks and wagesfall This kind of reasoning which for present purposes we mightlabel Benthamite rather than Malthusian was very common in the daysbefore 1834 It has a distinctly modern ring to divorce wages from theirroots in the efficiency of labor must lead to a misallocation of re-sources
Applied to an underdeveloped country however this argument mustbe severely qualified The early stages of economic development areinvariably characterized by dualism the high-wage industrial sectoris largely independent of the low-wage agricultural sector In contrastto manufacture labor in agriculture is typically hired on a day-to-daybasis and the demand for farm workers varies sharply from season toseason Full employment may be achieved during planting and harvest-ing but during slack seasons which comprise from one third to onehalf of the calendar year as much as half the labor force may be idleThe gradual destruction of handicraft industry due to the invasion ofmachine-made goods sometimes creates a pool of chronically un-employed labor even during peak seasons The automatic market forceswhich would eliminate such unemployment by driving down wagerates fail to operate if wages are below the biological minimum im-plying that the food intake of workers is not sufficient to permit diemto supply their maximum effort per unit of time The amount of workput fordi now depends on die wages paid rather than the other wayaround lower wages would lower the consumption and hence dieproductivity of workers Under these circumstances it will pay land-lords and farmers to maintain wages above competitive market-clearinglevels and to devise a special scheme to eliminate open unemploymentThe standard method is to disguise the manpower surplus by sharingthe work out among all job-seekers with each man putting forth lesseffort than he is capable of supplying Since labor costs per unit ofoutput are now lower than they would be if the unemployed were per-mitted to underbid going wage rates such institutional arrangementslead to a greater total product than would otherwise be available2
With 40 per cent of the gainfully occupied population in agricultureEngland in 1815 must be counted among the underdeveloped countries
2 For theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of disguised unemployment see H LeibensteinThe Theory of Underemployment in Backward Economies Journal of Political EconomyLXV (April 1957) and P Wonnacott Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Under-developed Economies Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXVI (May 1962)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 155
displaying all the familiar features of a dual economy Under thecircumstances a system of supplementing the earnings of agriculturalworkers so as to guarantee a living wage must have pulled in oppositedirections On the one hand it reduced mortalities particularly infantmortalities and so depressed wages by promoting population growthIt may also have slowed down emigration to the industrial sector widisimilar effects On the other hand insofar as it repaired nutritional de-ficiencies it tended to raise wages by raising the effort level of eachworker The family endowment features of the Speenhamland policypulled in one direction while the use of the bread scale to determinethe amount of the wage subsidy pulled in the other
The problem of deciding which of the two forces predominated iscomplicated by the fact that wheat was both the principal wage goodand in some sections of the country the principal product of farmersdemanding labor In years of drought when the demand for agricul-tural labor fell off tending to lower wages the price of bread soaredupwards and the subsidy increased Conversely in years of bumpercrops wages tended to rise and the subsidy would fall as the price ofbread declined One of the significant side effects of the AllowanceSystem as Malthus pointed out was to render the demand for wheatinsensitive to wheat prices by stabilizing the real income of agricul-tural workers who if we are to believe Edens budget studies spentalmost half of their income on wheaten bread Thus when wheatprices rose after a bad harvest die total quantity of wheat sold declinedless than proportionately and farmers enjoyed higher incomes thanthey had expected On the other hand a good harvest would lead toa decline both in the price of wheat and in the total receipts of farmersSo universal was this inverse association of the yield of the harvest andagricultural prosperity in this period that we may take it as a fact thatthe demand for wheat was then highly inelastic
Since the poor rates were levied on die occupiers not on the ownersof land and real estate farmers themselves paid a major share of therates used to finance wage subsidies Owing to die inelastic demand forwheat it was paradoxically true diat they gained on die swings whatthey lost on the roundabout Spending on relief rose when the harvestwas poor but at such times the income of farmers was at a maximumConversely when they were squeezed by falling prices and rising wagesin consequence of a good harvest die pressure on die rates was at aminimum In other words poor relief spending fluctuated with the in-come of farmers No wonder we hear more complaints about the
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
152 Mark Blaug
tive of agricultural workers and thus contributed to the unprecedentedrise in poor relief expenditures in the years before and after WaterlooSo ran the argument of the reformers of 1834 and so runs the concensusof modern opinion
History repeats itself says an ancient proverbmdashand historians repeateach other The standard analysis of the effects of the Old Poor Lawis derived without qualification from the Poor Law CommissionersReport of 1834 that brilliant influential and wildly unhistoricaldocument as Tawney once described it But it was a gross exaggerationthat led the reformers of 1834 to characterize the Old Poor Law asa bounty on indolence and vice and a universal system of pau-perism Only an incomplete theoretical analysis of the workings ofthe Speenhamland policy and a superficial examination of the factscould have produced so one-sided an interpretation The continuedendorsement of the Report of 1834 has seriously distorted the history ofthe Industrial Revolution in Britain The Old Poor Law tried to main-tain the real income of workers by tying wages to die cost of living itprovided unemployment compensation togetlier with a scheme topromote private employment and it coupled both of these to a familyendowment plan It is not often realized that the kind of argumentswhich are used to condemn the Old Poor Law per se would equallycondemn most modern welfare legislation Perhaps diis is the inten-tion but even left-wing historians such as the Webbs and the Ham-monds have attacked the Old Poor Law on the one hand and on theother have argued that minimum wage legislation accompanied bychildren allowance payments would have been a preferable alternativeto Speenhamland But in fact their proposal amounts to nearly thesame thing as the Old Poor Law
The years between 1813 and the accession of Victoria have beenaptly described as the blackest period of English farming When weput together everything we know about the causes of agriculturaldistress in those years we will have grounds more relative thanmaladministration of the Poor Laws to account for the growth of reliefexpenditures This is not merely an academic question In the Victorianera the whole of what we would nowadays call social services werereflected in poor-law expenditures And the Report of 1834 with itsstrictures on the old system was revered for three generations as acanonical book teaching that all forms of dole charity and relief to theunemployed are suspect because they only induce him to breed inidleness that least relief is best relief and that voluntary charity is
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 153
always preferable to public aid because it is somehow capable of dis-criminating the deserving poor from the undeserving Withoutthe continued influence of the principles of 1834 Mrs Jellyby is un-thinkable
I
Before looking at the empirical evidence let us consider what resultsmight be expected from a system of subsidizing wages considered byitself Most historians assume without question that the AllowanceSystem must have depressed agricultural earnings farmers could payless than competitive rates because the parish officers were forced tomake up the deficit But what if the guaranteed subsidy made workersless willing to supply effort It is elementary economics that the short-run effect of a subsidy to workers is to lessen the supplymdashthe number ofdays per week offered by men women and children if die supply curveof labor is positively sloped the result is that wages will rise Ofcourse if the subsidy is tied to the size of the family it may promoteearlier marriages and more children so that within a decade or soit does depress wages To a generation drunk on Malthusian wine thepopulation argument seemed irrefutable But nowadays we are in-clined to treat diis type of reasoning with more skepticism particularlyif the subsidy is modest in amount increases less than proportionatelywith each additional child and is continuously scaled down year afteryear as we shall see all three things were true under the Old PoorLaw1
It is possible to argue however that the Allowance System depressedwages even if it did not stimulate the growdi of population A subsidythat varies inversely with earned wages and diat is what the AllowanceSystem amounted to gives workers no incentive to supply genuineeffort And since employers are not the only taxpayers the system like-
1 Alfred Marshall testifying in 1893 before the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor de-plored the persistence of Malthusian thinking among laymen and illustrated the evolution ofprofessional economic opinion in the nineteenth century in these words Suppose you couldconceive a Mad Emperor of China to give to every English working man half-a-crown fornothing according to the current notions as far as I have been able to ascertain them thatwould lower wages because it would enable people to work for less I think that nineeconomists out of ten at the beginning of the century would have said that that would lowerwages Well of course it might increase population and that might bring down wages butunless it did increase population the effect according to the modern school would be to raisewages because the increased wealth of the working classes would lead to better living morevigorous and better educated people with greater earning power and so wages would riseThat is the centre of the difference Official Papers (London Macmillan and Co 1926) p 249
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
154 Mark Blaug
wise deprives those who hire labor of the incentive to exact a full dayswork In consequence productivity declines output shrinks and wagesfall This kind of reasoning which for present purposes we mightlabel Benthamite rather than Malthusian was very common in the daysbefore 1834 It has a distinctly modern ring to divorce wages from theirroots in the efficiency of labor must lead to a misallocation of re-sources
Applied to an underdeveloped country however this argument mustbe severely qualified The early stages of economic development areinvariably characterized by dualism the high-wage industrial sectoris largely independent of the low-wage agricultural sector In contrastto manufacture labor in agriculture is typically hired on a day-to-daybasis and the demand for farm workers varies sharply from season toseason Full employment may be achieved during planting and harvest-ing but during slack seasons which comprise from one third to onehalf of the calendar year as much as half the labor force may be idleThe gradual destruction of handicraft industry due to the invasion ofmachine-made goods sometimes creates a pool of chronically un-employed labor even during peak seasons The automatic market forceswhich would eliminate such unemployment by driving down wagerates fail to operate if wages are below the biological minimum im-plying that the food intake of workers is not sufficient to permit diemto supply their maximum effort per unit of time The amount of workput fordi now depends on die wages paid rather than the other wayaround lower wages would lower the consumption and hence dieproductivity of workers Under these circumstances it will pay land-lords and farmers to maintain wages above competitive market-clearinglevels and to devise a special scheme to eliminate open unemploymentThe standard method is to disguise the manpower surplus by sharingthe work out among all job-seekers with each man putting forth lesseffort than he is capable of supplying Since labor costs per unit ofoutput are now lower than they would be if the unemployed were per-mitted to underbid going wage rates such institutional arrangementslead to a greater total product than would otherwise be available2
With 40 per cent of the gainfully occupied population in agricultureEngland in 1815 must be counted among the underdeveloped countries
2 For theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of disguised unemployment see H LeibensteinThe Theory of Underemployment in Backward Economies Journal of Political EconomyLXV (April 1957) and P Wonnacott Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Under-developed Economies Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXVI (May 1962)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 155
displaying all the familiar features of a dual economy Under thecircumstances a system of supplementing the earnings of agriculturalworkers so as to guarantee a living wage must have pulled in oppositedirections On the one hand it reduced mortalities particularly infantmortalities and so depressed wages by promoting population growthIt may also have slowed down emigration to the industrial sector widisimilar effects On the other hand insofar as it repaired nutritional de-ficiencies it tended to raise wages by raising the effort level of eachworker The family endowment features of the Speenhamland policypulled in one direction while the use of the bread scale to determinethe amount of the wage subsidy pulled in the other
The problem of deciding which of the two forces predominated iscomplicated by the fact that wheat was both the principal wage goodand in some sections of the country the principal product of farmersdemanding labor In years of drought when the demand for agricul-tural labor fell off tending to lower wages the price of bread soaredupwards and the subsidy increased Conversely in years of bumpercrops wages tended to rise and the subsidy would fall as the price ofbread declined One of the significant side effects of the AllowanceSystem as Malthus pointed out was to render the demand for wheatinsensitive to wheat prices by stabilizing the real income of agricul-tural workers who if we are to believe Edens budget studies spentalmost half of their income on wheaten bread Thus when wheatprices rose after a bad harvest die total quantity of wheat sold declinedless than proportionately and farmers enjoyed higher incomes thanthey had expected On the other hand a good harvest would lead toa decline both in the price of wheat and in the total receipts of farmersSo universal was this inverse association of the yield of the harvest andagricultural prosperity in this period that we may take it as a fact thatthe demand for wheat was then highly inelastic
Since the poor rates were levied on die occupiers not on the ownersof land and real estate farmers themselves paid a major share of therates used to finance wage subsidies Owing to die inelastic demand forwheat it was paradoxically true diat they gained on die swings whatthey lost on the roundabout Spending on relief rose when the harvestwas poor but at such times the income of farmers was at a maximumConversely when they were squeezed by falling prices and rising wagesin consequence of a good harvest die pressure on die rates was at aminimum In other words poor relief spending fluctuated with the in-come of farmers No wonder we hear more complaints about the
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 153
always preferable to public aid because it is somehow capable of dis-criminating the deserving poor from the undeserving Withoutthe continued influence of the principles of 1834 Mrs Jellyby is un-thinkable
I
Before looking at the empirical evidence let us consider what resultsmight be expected from a system of subsidizing wages considered byitself Most historians assume without question that the AllowanceSystem must have depressed agricultural earnings farmers could payless than competitive rates because the parish officers were forced tomake up the deficit But what if the guaranteed subsidy made workersless willing to supply effort It is elementary economics that the short-run effect of a subsidy to workers is to lessen the supplymdashthe number ofdays per week offered by men women and children if die supply curveof labor is positively sloped the result is that wages will rise Ofcourse if the subsidy is tied to the size of the family it may promoteearlier marriages and more children so that within a decade or soit does depress wages To a generation drunk on Malthusian wine thepopulation argument seemed irrefutable But nowadays we are in-clined to treat diis type of reasoning with more skepticism particularlyif the subsidy is modest in amount increases less than proportionatelywith each additional child and is continuously scaled down year afteryear as we shall see all three things were true under the Old PoorLaw1
It is possible to argue however that the Allowance System depressedwages even if it did not stimulate the growdi of population A subsidythat varies inversely with earned wages and diat is what the AllowanceSystem amounted to gives workers no incentive to supply genuineeffort And since employers are not the only taxpayers the system like-
1 Alfred Marshall testifying in 1893 before the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor de-plored the persistence of Malthusian thinking among laymen and illustrated the evolution ofprofessional economic opinion in the nineteenth century in these words Suppose you couldconceive a Mad Emperor of China to give to every English working man half-a-crown fornothing according to the current notions as far as I have been able to ascertain them thatwould lower wages because it would enable people to work for less I think that nineeconomists out of ten at the beginning of the century would have said that that would lowerwages Well of course it might increase population and that might bring down wages butunless it did increase population the effect according to the modern school would be to raisewages because the increased wealth of the working classes would lead to better living morevigorous and better educated people with greater earning power and so wages would riseThat is the centre of the difference Official Papers (London Macmillan and Co 1926) p 249
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
154 Mark Blaug
wise deprives those who hire labor of the incentive to exact a full dayswork In consequence productivity declines output shrinks and wagesfall This kind of reasoning which for present purposes we mightlabel Benthamite rather than Malthusian was very common in the daysbefore 1834 It has a distinctly modern ring to divorce wages from theirroots in the efficiency of labor must lead to a misallocation of re-sources
Applied to an underdeveloped country however this argument mustbe severely qualified The early stages of economic development areinvariably characterized by dualism the high-wage industrial sectoris largely independent of the low-wage agricultural sector In contrastto manufacture labor in agriculture is typically hired on a day-to-daybasis and the demand for farm workers varies sharply from season toseason Full employment may be achieved during planting and harvest-ing but during slack seasons which comprise from one third to onehalf of the calendar year as much as half the labor force may be idleThe gradual destruction of handicraft industry due to the invasion ofmachine-made goods sometimes creates a pool of chronically un-employed labor even during peak seasons The automatic market forceswhich would eliminate such unemployment by driving down wagerates fail to operate if wages are below the biological minimum im-plying that the food intake of workers is not sufficient to permit diemto supply their maximum effort per unit of time The amount of workput fordi now depends on die wages paid rather than the other wayaround lower wages would lower the consumption and hence dieproductivity of workers Under these circumstances it will pay land-lords and farmers to maintain wages above competitive market-clearinglevels and to devise a special scheme to eliminate open unemploymentThe standard method is to disguise the manpower surplus by sharingthe work out among all job-seekers with each man putting forth lesseffort than he is capable of supplying Since labor costs per unit ofoutput are now lower than they would be if the unemployed were per-mitted to underbid going wage rates such institutional arrangementslead to a greater total product than would otherwise be available2
With 40 per cent of the gainfully occupied population in agricultureEngland in 1815 must be counted among the underdeveloped countries
2 For theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of disguised unemployment see H LeibensteinThe Theory of Underemployment in Backward Economies Journal of Political EconomyLXV (April 1957) and P Wonnacott Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Under-developed Economies Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXVI (May 1962)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 155
displaying all the familiar features of a dual economy Under thecircumstances a system of supplementing the earnings of agriculturalworkers so as to guarantee a living wage must have pulled in oppositedirections On the one hand it reduced mortalities particularly infantmortalities and so depressed wages by promoting population growthIt may also have slowed down emigration to the industrial sector widisimilar effects On the other hand insofar as it repaired nutritional de-ficiencies it tended to raise wages by raising the effort level of eachworker The family endowment features of the Speenhamland policypulled in one direction while the use of the bread scale to determinethe amount of the wage subsidy pulled in the other
The problem of deciding which of the two forces predominated iscomplicated by the fact that wheat was both the principal wage goodand in some sections of the country the principal product of farmersdemanding labor In years of drought when the demand for agricul-tural labor fell off tending to lower wages the price of bread soaredupwards and the subsidy increased Conversely in years of bumpercrops wages tended to rise and the subsidy would fall as the price ofbread declined One of the significant side effects of the AllowanceSystem as Malthus pointed out was to render the demand for wheatinsensitive to wheat prices by stabilizing the real income of agricul-tural workers who if we are to believe Edens budget studies spentalmost half of their income on wheaten bread Thus when wheatprices rose after a bad harvest die total quantity of wheat sold declinedless than proportionately and farmers enjoyed higher incomes thanthey had expected On the other hand a good harvest would lead toa decline both in the price of wheat and in the total receipts of farmersSo universal was this inverse association of the yield of the harvest andagricultural prosperity in this period that we may take it as a fact thatthe demand for wheat was then highly inelastic
Since the poor rates were levied on die occupiers not on the ownersof land and real estate farmers themselves paid a major share of therates used to finance wage subsidies Owing to die inelastic demand forwheat it was paradoxically true diat they gained on die swings whatthey lost on the roundabout Spending on relief rose when the harvestwas poor but at such times the income of farmers was at a maximumConversely when they were squeezed by falling prices and rising wagesin consequence of a good harvest die pressure on die rates was at aminimum In other words poor relief spending fluctuated with the in-come of farmers No wonder we hear more complaints about the
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
154 Mark Blaug
wise deprives those who hire labor of the incentive to exact a full dayswork In consequence productivity declines output shrinks and wagesfall This kind of reasoning which for present purposes we mightlabel Benthamite rather than Malthusian was very common in the daysbefore 1834 It has a distinctly modern ring to divorce wages from theirroots in the efficiency of labor must lead to a misallocation of re-sources
Applied to an underdeveloped country however this argument mustbe severely qualified The early stages of economic development areinvariably characterized by dualism the high-wage industrial sectoris largely independent of the low-wage agricultural sector In contrastto manufacture labor in agriculture is typically hired on a day-to-daybasis and the demand for farm workers varies sharply from season toseason Full employment may be achieved during planting and harvest-ing but during slack seasons which comprise from one third to onehalf of the calendar year as much as half the labor force may be idleThe gradual destruction of handicraft industry due to the invasion ofmachine-made goods sometimes creates a pool of chronically un-employed labor even during peak seasons The automatic market forceswhich would eliminate such unemployment by driving down wagerates fail to operate if wages are below the biological minimum im-plying that the food intake of workers is not sufficient to permit diemto supply their maximum effort per unit of time The amount of workput fordi now depends on die wages paid rather than the other wayaround lower wages would lower the consumption and hence dieproductivity of workers Under these circumstances it will pay land-lords and farmers to maintain wages above competitive market-clearinglevels and to devise a special scheme to eliminate open unemploymentThe standard method is to disguise the manpower surplus by sharingthe work out among all job-seekers with each man putting forth lesseffort than he is capable of supplying Since labor costs per unit ofoutput are now lower than they would be if the unemployed were per-mitted to underbid going wage rates such institutional arrangementslead to a greater total product than would otherwise be available2
With 40 per cent of the gainfully occupied population in agricultureEngland in 1815 must be counted among the underdeveloped countries
2 For theoretical analysis of the phenomenon of disguised unemployment see H LeibensteinThe Theory of Underemployment in Backward Economies Journal of Political EconomyLXV (April 1957) and P Wonnacott Disguised and Overt Unemployment in Under-developed Economies Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXVI (May 1962)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 155
displaying all the familiar features of a dual economy Under thecircumstances a system of supplementing the earnings of agriculturalworkers so as to guarantee a living wage must have pulled in oppositedirections On the one hand it reduced mortalities particularly infantmortalities and so depressed wages by promoting population growthIt may also have slowed down emigration to the industrial sector widisimilar effects On the other hand insofar as it repaired nutritional de-ficiencies it tended to raise wages by raising the effort level of eachworker The family endowment features of the Speenhamland policypulled in one direction while the use of the bread scale to determinethe amount of the wage subsidy pulled in the other
The problem of deciding which of the two forces predominated iscomplicated by the fact that wheat was both the principal wage goodand in some sections of the country the principal product of farmersdemanding labor In years of drought when the demand for agricul-tural labor fell off tending to lower wages the price of bread soaredupwards and the subsidy increased Conversely in years of bumpercrops wages tended to rise and the subsidy would fall as the price ofbread declined One of the significant side effects of the AllowanceSystem as Malthus pointed out was to render the demand for wheatinsensitive to wheat prices by stabilizing the real income of agricul-tural workers who if we are to believe Edens budget studies spentalmost half of their income on wheaten bread Thus when wheatprices rose after a bad harvest die total quantity of wheat sold declinedless than proportionately and farmers enjoyed higher incomes thanthey had expected On the other hand a good harvest would lead toa decline both in the price of wheat and in the total receipts of farmersSo universal was this inverse association of the yield of the harvest andagricultural prosperity in this period that we may take it as a fact thatthe demand for wheat was then highly inelastic
Since the poor rates were levied on die occupiers not on the ownersof land and real estate farmers themselves paid a major share of therates used to finance wage subsidies Owing to die inelastic demand forwheat it was paradoxically true diat they gained on die swings whatthey lost on the roundabout Spending on relief rose when the harvestwas poor but at such times the income of farmers was at a maximumConversely when they were squeezed by falling prices and rising wagesin consequence of a good harvest die pressure on die rates was at aminimum In other words poor relief spending fluctuated with the in-come of farmers No wonder we hear more complaints about the
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 155
displaying all the familiar features of a dual economy Under thecircumstances a system of supplementing the earnings of agriculturalworkers so as to guarantee a living wage must have pulled in oppositedirections On the one hand it reduced mortalities particularly infantmortalities and so depressed wages by promoting population growthIt may also have slowed down emigration to the industrial sector widisimilar effects On the other hand insofar as it repaired nutritional de-ficiencies it tended to raise wages by raising the effort level of eachworker The family endowment features of the Speenhamland policypulled in one direction while the use of the bread scale to determinethe amount of the wage subsidy pulled in the other
The problem of deciding which of the two forces predominated iscomplicated by the fact that wheat was both the principal wage goodand in some sections of the country the principal product of farmersdemanding labor In years of drought when the demand for agricul-tural labor fell off tending to lower wages the price of bread soaredupwards and the subsidy increased Conversely in years of bumpercrops wages tended to rise and the subsidy would fall as the price ofbread declined One of the significant side effects of the AllowanceSystem as Malthus pointed out was to render the demand for wheatinsensitive to wheat prices by stabilizing the real income of agricul-tural workers who if we are to believe Edens budget studies spentalmost half of their income on wheaten bread Thus when wheatprices rose after a bad harvest die total quantity of wheat sold declinedless than proportionately and farmers enjoyed higher incomes thanthey had expected On the other hand a good harvest would lead toa decline both in the price of wheat and in the total receipts of farmersSo universal was this inverse association of the yield of the harvest andagricultural prosperity in this period that we may take it as a fact thatthe demand for wheat was then highly inelastic
Since the poor rates were levied on die occupiers not on the ownersof land and real estate farmers themselves paid a major share of therates used to finance wage subsidies Owing to die inelastic demand forwheat it was paradoxically true diat they gained on die swings whatthey lost on the roundabout Spending on relief rose when the harvestwas poor but at such times the income of farmers was at a maximumConversely when they were squeezed by falling prices and rising wagesin consequence of a good harvest die pressure on die rates was at aminimum In other words poor relief spending fluctuated with the in-come of farmers No wonder we hear more complaints about the
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
156 Mark Blaug
onerous burdens of the poor rates in years when inclement weatherproduced agricultural prosperity
We must however take into account the possibility of a trend createdby an excess of bad years over good By putting a floor under the de-mand for wheat the Old Poor Law kept up the price of bread in yearsof drought In this way a persistently unfavorable trend in rainfall ortemperature could account for rising relief expenditures irrespective ofthe effects of relief spending on population growth and work incentives
To round out the analysis we recall that allowances-in-aid-of-wageswere almost always associated with the Roundsman System modified bythe use of the Labor Rate The Poor Law authorities calculated dietotal wage bill of the parish and then levied the poor rate to cover thisamount Each ratepayer agreed to pay the allotted sum either in wagesor in rates By accepting his quota of the unemployed in proportion tothe assessed value of his property a farmer could be relieved of payingpart of his rates It was diought diat this would encourage employ-ment because farmers would prefer to employ more workers than theyreally needed rather than to pay the parish the deficiency in theirallotted rates In view of the existence of visible as well as invisibleunemployment in rural districts at that time the idea of the LaborRate made good sense as long as labor is in surplus wasteful employ-ment may well be cheaper than maintaining workers on the dole Butsince employers of labor were not the only ratepayers the systemtended to discriminate against family farms and smallholders whoemployed little labor We cannot say how much importance attachesto such considerations unless we know just how die rates were de-termined how many workers in a parish were typically unemployedand how far market wages stood below an acceptable minimumstandard It is time to turn to the evidence
II
The first question is How prevalent was the system of subsidizingwages out of the rates To answer this question at all we must perforceoversimplify Poor Law administration before 1834 differed widely inaims and methods from place to place and from time to time Parlia-mentary legislation failed to produce a national Poor Law and dirough-out this period tliere was only a casual connection between the statutebooks and the administrative practices of parish officers The 15000parishes in England and Wales varied in area from thirty acres to
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 157
thirty square miles in population from a few dozen to tens ofthousands and in taxable capacity from a barren common to thebuilt-up docks of the City of London With a system so heterogeneousany generalization is bound to be subject to serious qualification
Moreover we know next to nothing about the actual number ofpeople relieved or about the proportions relieved inside and outsideworkhouses before 1834 Throughout this period only two attemptswere made to take a census of the poor The first in 1802 was the morethorough showing about one million people on relief including 300-000 children under the ages of fifteen3 This implies that as much as 11per cent of the population of England and Wales was then on reliefbut unfortunately we know that the census counted more than onceany pauper who applied for relief at two or three separate occasionsin the year a common practice at the time Of the total number receiv-ing aid only 8 per cent were residents of workhouses This is notsurprising considering that there were only 400 workhouses in thewhole of the country Even where there was a workhouse in the parishmagistrates were frequently reluctant to offer the House which wasinvariably an unsanitary and disorderly institution herding together theyoung the old the sick and the insane The heavy reliance on outdoorrelief therefore was as much due to a humane concern over the plightof the poor as to anything else Even those reported to be disabled bypermanent illness were not always forced into the workhouse asevidenced by the fact that their number in 1802 exceeded the numberof workhouse residents With more than 90 per cent of the pauper hostreceiving outdoor relief about 55 per cent were said to be onpermanent relief while 35 per cent were denoted as being relievedoccasionally This does not tell us however how many were entirelydependent upon parish funds and how many had their wages supple-mented permanently or occasionally by the Poor Law authoritiesThe next census for 1812-1814 was equally vague and furthermore itfailed to count either children under fifteen on outdoor relief or non-residents of the parish4
The prevailing belief at the time was that the Allowance System wasconfined to the agricultural counties of the South The Report of 1834made no effort to verify this assumption The Commissioner circulatedquestions in the rural districts but not all parishes were visited and it
3 P P 1803-1804 (175) XIII The returns of the census are also found in J Marshall ADigest of All the Accounts (1833) pp 33 38
Ibid p 34
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
158 Mark Blaug
is impossible to tell whether the replies constitute anything like arepresentative sample The Commissioners never attempted to sum-
In the shaded counties most parishes subsidizedwages out of the poor rates in 182k The system wasparticularly prevalent in the heavily shaded countiesThe heavy line bisecting England separates the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wage countiesof the South
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 159
marize their findings and in the Report itself they offered a fewgraphic examples of the Allowance System drawn from parishes inboth the South and the North thus conveying the impression that whatthey admittedly called the abuses of the South were to be foundthroughout the country Even the Webbs in their definitive book onThe Old Poor Law say no more than that outdoor relief to the un-employed was adopted in principle at one time or another by prac-tically every rural parish outside Northumberland and was universalin rural districts south of the line that runs from the Severn to theWash
The only worthwhile evidence we have is a neglected questionnairecirculated to the Poor Law authorities in 1824 by the Select Committeeon Labourers Wages to which Clapham first drew attention in 19266
Unfortunately in the slapdash manner of the day the Committeefailed to indicate what proportion of the parishes responded to thequestionnaire The replies from the various counties were grouped interms of hundreds or wapentakes and since these differed widely inpopulation it is difficult to weigh the answers in order to arrive at anaccurate picture of the spread of the Allowance System The Committeeitself concluded that the Speenhamland policy was pervasive in eightsouthern counties but an examination of the returns shows that it wasalso fairly widespread in twelve others The complex situation is con-veniently summed up in the accompanying map
Clapham provides a fair summary of the findings which contain afew surprises worth noting All the northern counties with the exceptionof Yorkshire categorically denied supplementing wages from the ratesBut so did all the counties in Wales and in the Southwest with the ex-ception of some districts in Devon Furthermore even in the South andSoutheast most of the parishes in Hampshire Kent and Surrey atleast half of the parishes in Essex Suffolk and Sussex and the wholeof Hertfordshire and Middlesex (including London) denied practicingthe Speenhamland policy The spread of the system as far north asNottinghamshire however and its adoption in the East and NorthRiding is somewhat unexpected
The Committee not only inquired whether wages were paid out of
5 S and B Webb English Poor Law History Part 1 The Old Poor Law (LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) pp 181 185 188-89 400-1
e J Clapham The Economic History of Modern Britain The Railway Age (2d ed Cam-bridge Cambridge Univ Press 1939) pp 123-25 The Webbs dismissed this piece of evidencein a footnote in English Poor Law History Part II The Last Hundred Years (London Long-mans Green amp Co 1929) I 6in
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
i6o Mark Blaug
rates but also whether the Roundsman System was in use and whetherallowances for extra children were customary The Roundsman Systemin the form of a Labor Rate was found everywhere associated with theAllowance System and never resorted to without it It appears how-ever that it was not common practice to make an extra allowance forthe first child even in counties where wages were regularly subsidizedout of the rates At the same time all parishes admitted giving allow-ances to large families as a matter of course From the answers pertain-ing to the grant of outdoor relief it seems that every parish followed itsown rules some parishes gave relief in money while others confinedassistance to payments in kind some distinguished between insufficientincome due to unemployment and low-standard wage rates but mostdid not in some districts no inquiry into earnings was made beforegranting outdoor relief in others only wages received during the lastfew weeks were taken into account But we must remember that twodiirds of the Poor Law authorities in the country were concerned withonly a few hundred families and therefore might be expected to befamiliar with the personal circumstances of relief recipients
What use can be made of this evidence It is conceivable that theReturns of the Select Committee on Labourers Wages correctly depictthe situation in 1824 but that great changes had been made since 1795Perhaps the Allowance System was practiced everywhere in 1800 or in1815 The policy of subsidizing wages met with little criticism so longas the war lasted It was first condemned by both Commons and Lordsin respective Committee Reports on the Poor Laws in 1817 and 1818and the 1824 Committee was designed to add ammunition to the chargeWe may suppose therefore that fewer parishes practiced outdoor reliefto the able-bodied in 1824 than in previous years and that those whopersisted in the policy in 1824 must surely have made use of it beforeit came under attack In other words the eighteen counties which wehave found to be Speenhamland counties in 1824 may be described asthe hard core of the problem Whatever the harmful effects of die OldPoor Law they should be revealed by a comparison of conditions inthis group of counties with all others
Ill
Before proceeding to die comparison we must ask how generouslywages were subsidized Do we have any reason to believe that wages inagriculture were below subsistence standards before die Allowance
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 161
System was introduced The first piece of evidence we have is that ofthe bread scale devised by the Berkshire magistrates The Berkshirescale began with the gallon loaf at a shilling and then increased witheach rise of a penny up to two shillings with the loaf selling at a shill-ing a single man was guaranteed a minimum weekly income of ywith an additional i 6d for each dependent with the loaf at twoshillings the minimum weekly income of a single man rose to 5 andthe allowance for dependents to 2s 6d A gallon loaf of bread is twentyounces of bread per day which was estimated reasonably enough toconstitute a minium ration for a man at work The idea was that onethird of income was to be spent on bread leaving a margin for rentheat clothing and other foodstuffs Thus in cheap years a familywith three children was said to require an income of gs a week spend-ing 3^ on breadmdasha gallon loaf for the man and two loaves for his fourdependentsmdashand 6s on odier things In dear years with the gallonloaf at 2s the bread allowance would double to 6s leaving a margin of9 on the notion that the prices of things in general rise by 50 per centwhen die price of bread doubles
In 1795 a single man working full time in the Midlands or thesouthern counties would have earned about Ss 6d a week Supplementsin kind which were common in rural districts would bring this up toabout 10s a week If he was unemployed the scale allowed him 5 in adear year like 1795 If he married and had a child his wife and hetogether might earn 15J a week out of work the scale allowed him 10sa week This was hardly a temptation to marry and breed recklesslyIndeed so modest was the Speenhamland scale that the Webbs cal-culated that it allowed a family with two children about one-halfof what a parsimonious Board of Guardians would today [1926] regardas bare subsistence 7 Neverdieless existing wage levels in agriculturefrequently fell below the Speenhamland minimum If a married manhad a few children young enough to keep his wife at home he couldnot possibly earn enough to support his family at the famine pricesthat prevailed during the Napoleonic wars And this is precisely whythe idea of a minimum wage law as an alternative to the bread scale wasrejected in 1795 if it took account of variations in the size of families itimplied a wage far in excess of prevailing rates8
When the Allowance System came to be criticized in the closingyears of the war one reaction was simply to reduce the bread scale or
7 Poor Law History p 1828 See ibid pp 170mdash73
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
162 Mark Blaug
to abandon it in favor of some loose index of food prices in general Anexamination of the local scales in use in various parishes shows that theywere indeed pared down everywhere so that by 1825 they had droppedon the average by about one third from their original level8 But moneywages in agriculture were no higher on the average in 1825 than in1795 and even in 1835 they still stood below the Speenhamlandminimum The Commissioners of 1834 found out to their surprise thatthe cost of maintaining workhouse inmates at a minimum diet some-times exceeded the wages of agricultural workers in surroundingdistricts10
It is clear then that the Allowance System subsidized what in factwere substandard wages At the same time the scale at which outdoorrelief was given does not suggest that it could have devitalized theworking class by offering an attractive alternative to gainful employ-ment Nevertheless the bread scale tied the relief bill to the price ofwheat and its effect on the volume of relief spending shows up quiteclearly the peaks and troughs in the two series coincide almost per-fectly11
It is apparent from the variations in the gazette price of wheat that1811-1812 1816-1817 1823-1825 and 1828-1831 were years of poorharvests when both relief spending and the price of wheat rose Aswe might expect the cry of agricultural distress was loudest in thebumper-crop years of 1813-18151820-1822 and 1832-1835 all of whichshow falling Poor Law expenditures
It will be noticed that real relief in terms of wheat generally variedinversely with money relief up to 1834 This phenomenon might betaken as further evidence of the influence of the bread scales the scaleswere so devised that they did not vary proportionately with the priceof bread hence real relief fell in dear years and rose in cheap yearsBut this could well be an illusion By itself the inverse relationshipbetween real and money relief tells us nothing more than that moneyexpenditures on relief never rose or declined as fast as the price of wheatIt is easy to explain why the relief bill did not rise as fast as wheat pricesas the burden on the rates increased the parish officers simply drew the
9 See ibid pp 182-83 J- L and B Hammond The Village Labourer (4th ed LondonLongmans Green amp Co 1927) E M Hampson The Treatment of Poverty in Cambridgeshire1579-1834 (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1934) pp 195-96
1 0 See S E Finer The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London Methuea Co1952)
1 1 There are no official figures available for total relief expenditures in the years 1785-1801and 1803-1811 For sources see Appendices A and B
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 163
GRBPH 1
INPEXNUMBER
120-
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
80-
70-
RELIEF IN
WHERT
raquo M -
PRICE OF
PRICE OF bull
1810 6 1820 w 26 1830 36 1840
strings tighter It is not so obvious why the relief bill should have laggedbehind falling wheat prices But when one considers the inertia thatcharacterized Poor Law administration in the period the lag is notreally surprising
Total relief spending showed a sharp upward trend after 1795reaching a peak in 1818 after which it declined again to a low pointin 1823 In the latter part of the 1820s the trend was upward onceagain Earlier we hypothesized that the predominance of bad yearsover good leads to rising relief expenditures if the amount of reliefgiven is tied to the price of wheat We can now test this hypodiesisOut of the twenty-five years from 1793 to 1818 only 1796 1814 and1815 were years of abundant harvests and as many as fourteen crops inthis period were seriously deficient In contrast good harvests wereprevalent in the decade after 1818 in particular the yield and quality
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
164 Mark Blaug
of the harvests of 1819 1820 and 1821 were without precedent12 Thuswithout resorting to additional considerations it is possible to accountfor the sharp rise in poor relief expenditures up to 1818 and the declinethereafter by long waves in climatic conditions This should serve tocheck hasty generalizations about the economic causes of a trend in thetotal relief bill
IV
The amount of poor relief per head was generally higher in the eight-een counties we have designated as Speenhamland counties than else-where In 1802 it averaged izr in the Speenhamland counties and 8sin the non-Speenhamland counties by 1831 the average in the firstgroup had risen to 13^ Sd while the average in the second group hadonly increased to 8 yd13 Such figures assume of course that therewere no variations in the accuracy of population statistics betweencounties an assumption which we know to be false Nevertheless thepattern is so pronounced that we may ignore the shortcomings of the
GRRPH X
INDEX
NUMBER
200-
180-
160-
140-
no-100-
REUEF IN
OTHER COUNTIES
RELIEF IN
SPEENHHMLRND
COUNTIES
1802 1810 K 18A0 14 I t 1 M1830
1 2 T Tooke History of Prices (1857) VI App 61 3 See Appendix A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 165data Having said this much it must be added that there appear to beno other significant differences in the pattern of relief expendituresbetween the Speenhamland and the non-Speenhamland counties Forexample if we compare the rate of change of total expenditures in thetwo groups of counties we discover that they varied with remarkablesimilarity14
In view of the fact that the Allowance System was almost entirely arural problem in a particular part of the country it is surprising to findso much coincidence between die two series Would it make a differ-ence if instead we grouped togetlier the agricultural counties and con-trasted their poor relief expenditures with the nonagricultural counties It should make a difference while all the Speenhamland counties fallinto the agricultural category some agricultural counties are not Speen-hamland counties15 But again despite some differences in the ampli-tude of fluctuations the peaks and troughs coincide
GRRPH 3INDEXNUMBER
xoo-180-
160-
140-
U0-
100-
RELIEF IN
NON-RGRICULTURRL
COUNTIES -
COUNTIES
18OZ 1810
Earlier we attributed increases in relief spending to the occurrenceof poor harvests and we showed that relief in agricultural countiesrose and fell with the state of the harvest But in that case what arewe to make of the fact that relief in nonagricultural counties followed
1 4 For sources see Appendix B1 5 See Appendix C for the derivation of the series
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
166 Mark Blaug
so closely upon the pattern in rural areas The explanation lies in thefact that cycles in industrial activity in this period were closely gearedto fluctuations in the harvest A markedly deficient harvest called foran increase in grain imports which put pressure on the money marketleading to a reduction in investment and employment owing to theinelastic demand for wheat the rise in wheat prices redistributed in-come from consumers to farmers since the marginal propensity toconsume of farmers was lower than that of consumers in general theresult was to lower aggregate expenditures on consumption Con-versely an abundant domestic harvest increased the level of effectivedemand throughout the economy16 Thus despite differences in theadministration of the Poor Laws relief spending rose and fell moreor less simultaneously in all counties
What can we learn from a graphic comparison of the two series Itappears that relief rose faster than population in all counties up to 1812and at a fairly uniform rate It is tempting to credit this to lax admin-istration of relief fostered by the emergency feelings of wartime In1803 Parliament ordered parish officers to give the wives and childrenof militiamen a weekly allowance equal to the current daily wage ofagricultural labor this added about 5-8 per cent to Poor Law expendi-tures in the years 1812-1814 Nevertheless such was the rise in pricesduring the war that the purchasing power of total relief was probablyno higher in 1812 than in 1795 With the great break in wheat pricesin 1813 relief expenditures were cut back everywhere more success-fully in rural than in industrial districts The downward trend wasshort-lived however By 1816 the difficulties of conversion to peace-time production made new demands on the Poor Law authorities In1817 and 1818 the government found itself obliged to set the unem-ployed to work on road projects financed by the sale of public bondsWith the improvement of conditions after 1818 the burden on the poorrates fell everywhere although in real terms the amount of relief givenwas still rising The huge harvests of 1819-1821 gave an edge to theagricultural counties where relief fell faster than in the industrial dis-tricts Parliaments stern condemnation of the Allowance System in1818 however seems to have had some effect the downward trend inrelief spending is more pronounced in the Speenhamland than in thenon-Speenhamland counties The industrial boom of 1822-1825 shows
1 6 See A D Gayer W W Rostow A J Schwartz Economic Fluctuations in the BritishEconomy 1790-1850 (Oxford Oxford Univ Press 1953) II 563-64 793 854 R C OMatthews A Study in Trade-Cycle History (Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 1954) ch 4
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 167
up in the stability of poor relief expenditures in nonagricultural coun-ties in agriculture these were not prosperous years With the crashof 1825 relief spending in nonagricultural counties rose sharply butthereafter the pattern in the industrial and agricultural areas did notdiffer significantly The Poor Law officers in the Speenhamland coun-ties however had come to heed the alarm at the rising burden on therates although the general trend was upwards from 1823-1831 theyprevented relief spending from increasing as fast in their parishes asit did in the country as a whole
A comparison of index numbers cannot reveal differences that arepresent at the outset and that persist dirough time We have notedthat relief per head was consistently higher in the Speenhamlandcounties than elsewhere It was also higher in the agricultural countiesthan in the nonagricultural counties What we have just demonstratedis that whatever the reason for this pattern in the absolute amount ofper capita relief it was not seriously influenced before 1834 either bydifferences in the administration of the Poor Laws in different countiesor by an alleged deterioration of agriculture under the influence of al-lowances-in-aid-of-wages There is no evidence whatever of that mostpopular of all the charges levied at the Old Poor Law the snow-balleffect of outdoor relief to the able-bodied
This still leaves us without an explanation of the higher absoluteburden of the poor rates in certain counties to which we now turn
V
Trustworthy statistics for agricultural wages in this period are avail-able on a county basis for the years 1795 1824 1833 1837 and 1850Wage data for agricultural workers are notoriously difficult to inter-pret It is not only that they are subject to sharp seasonal variationsthey are frequently augmented by money payments for task work andby payments in kind in the form of food drink fuel and cheap rentsAlthough such supplements to cash earnings varied a good deal be-tween counties in the nineteenth century being higher oddly enoughwhere money payments were higher rural conservatism makes itplausible to assume that they did not vary radically from decade todecade It appears that the ratio of total earnings to money wageschanged little throughout the century earnings generally exceedingwages by 15-20 per cent17 Thus changes in the trend of money wages
1 7 See Appendix D
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
168 Mark Blaug
can be interpreted as reflecting changes in the trend of total earningsTo test the effect of the Speenhamland policy I have formed a com-
posite index of the standard weekly money wage of agricultural workersin all counties which practiced the Allowance System in 182418 Thecounty is admittedly a poor unit over which to take an average ofwages in many counties wages varied significantly from district todistrict For example the average wage in Middlesex including as itdoes London has little meaning Still we must make do with whatwe have The comparison reveals the following
Speenhamland CountiesAverage for England and Wales
7951 0 0
1 0 0
1824IOO
108
18331241 2 0
1837106
5
1850104108
For Britain as a whole the general picture is that of a rise from1795 to about 1812 and a fall from 1813 to a low in 1824 but evidenceabout these years is very uncertain Wages rose again in the latter halfof the 1820s varied little in the 1830s and then moved down againin the 1840s Given the rise in the price level during the war agricul-tural workers were probably not much better off in 1824 than in 1795But with the cost of living falling as much as 25 per cent between1825 and 1850 real wages were much higher at the end of the period
On the face of it it seems that the Speenhamland policy depressedagricultural wages between 1795 and 1824 Strangely enough how-ever in the decade before the passage of the Poor Law AmendmentAct wages in the Speenhamland counties recovered the ground lostduring the war and immediate postwar years We could attribute thisresult to stricter enforcement of the Poor Laws in the Speenhamlandcounties after 1824 But in that case why the rapid decline in theyears 1833-1850 after the Act of 1834 had crushed out the AllowanceSystem
In 1851 Caird drew a line through the middle of England to dis-tinguish the high-wage counties of the North from the low-wagecounties of the South Above the Caird line the money wages of ag-ricultural workers averaged more than 10 per week in 1824 belowthe line they averaged less except in Middlesex Surrey and Kent Ifwe hold with Clapham that the thorough-going adoption of theSpeenhamland policy coupled with the working of poor law settlementtended to keep down die standard weekly money wage of agriculturallabour what accounts for the low wages of Wales and the whole of
1 8 See Appendix E
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 169
the Southwest and West Midlands where the Allowance System waseschewed 19 Moreover agricultural wages in the North were not no-ticeably lower in the East and North Riding where wages were sub-sidized out of the poor rates than in other northern counties wherethey were not And in the northern Midlands Nottinghamshire andLeicestershire both Speenhamland counties paid wages above the na-tional average The fact that the Speenhamland counties were gener-ally located below the Caird wage-line should not be submitted asevidence that subsidies depressed wages On the contrary the causalrelationship seems to run the other way wages were only subsidizedwhen for other reasons they were too low to provide a minimumstandard of living
The picture of sharp wage differentials for equivalent kinds of laborbetween the North and the Southmdashdifferentials which exceeded thereal cost of transfer from one region to the othermdashdates back to theeighteenth century and persisted throughout the nineteenth centuryIn 1824 the range between the northern and southern counties wasabout 4 by the end of the century it had risen to 5J20 Superimposedupon that pattern was another which reflected the pull of rapidlygrowing towns upon the immediately surrounding countryside inthe South the greater was the distance from London the lower wasthe wage and in die North the same thing was true of the Lancashiretowns Manchester and Liverpool and the Yorkshire towns Leeds andSheffield The internal migration of workers which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution largely took the form of short-distance travelto the nearest factory town The people who moved into the cottontowns came almost exclusively from Lancashire and Cheshire itself orfrom Ireland Migration into London came from the extra-metropolitanparts of Middlesex and Surrey and to a lesser extent from the surround-ing counties of Kent Essex Hertfordshire and Berkshire Similarly mi-gration into the Midland iron towns of Warwickshire came from thecounty itself or from Staffordshire and Worcestershire to the west21
The pull of these towns not only raised wages in the surrounding ruralareas by reducing the supply of labor but also increased the demand
19Clapham The Railway Age p 125 He cited a few Speenhamland counties which showa fall of wages between 1795 and 1824 but does not mention Buckinghamshire BedfordshireNorfolk Essex Cambridge Northampshire Warwick and Devonmdashall Speenhamland countiesmdashwhere wages were higher in 1824 than in 1795
2 0 See C S Orwin B I Felton A Century of Wages and Earnings in Agriculture Journalof the Royal Agricultural Society 92 (1931)
2 1 See A Redford Labour Migration in England 1800-1850 (Manchester Manchester UnivPress 1926) ch 11 and appendices
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
170 Mark Blaug
for labor by providing a dependable expanding market for agriculturalproduce This accounts for the high level of agricultural wages in theNorth as well as the relatively higher wage levels in farm areas aroundLondon We have already mentioned the fact that wages in MiddlesexKent and Surrey compared favorably with the North Precisely forthat reason the parish officers did not resort to the Speenhamlandpolicy in these counties But even in East Anglia where wages weresupplemented by the Poor Law authorities proximity to London pro-duced wages higher than those in the Southwest where wages werenot subsidized Again in Sussex the most notorious Speenhamlandcounty agricultural wages were higher than in any county in theSouth except those immediately around London
We can hardly resist the conclusion that the parish officers only hadrecourse to the policy of subsidizing wages wherever the attraction ofurban industry made itself felt too weakly leaving a pool of surplusmanpower and substandard wages22
VI
It was a favorite doctrine of the Poor Law reformers of 1834 thatthe abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed would soon dissipatethe false and unreal appearance of surplus labour no labor surplusactually existed they argued apart from what had been artificiallycreated by the operation of the Old Poor Law They recommendedemigration from the southern counties but only in the transition periodfrom the old scheme to the new23 Nevertheless the Assistant Com-missioners found much evidence of structural unemployment in theSpeenhamland counties of the South and their testimony is particu-larly clear and detailed for the case of Sussex24 The natural periodicity
2 2 Another explanation suggests itself The Report of 1834 presented some evidence toshow that small parishes measured in terms of population per acre granted more relief perhead than large parishes the reason being that the intimate personal connections betweenmagistrates and farm hands in small parishes invited prodigality If this were so the highrates of relief per head in southern rural counties might be due to the fact that most of the1000 parishes under fifty inhabitants and most of the 6ooo under three hundred inhabitantswere located in southern agricultural districts To test this hypothesis we would have toexamine the size distribution of parishes among counties a question which cannot be enteredinto here
2 3 In the years 1835-1837 they arranged for the migration of about 5000 workers to thenorthern factory districts In the same period some 6500 Poor Law emigrants went overseasand in both cases about half of the migrants came from the East Anglian counties of Norfolkand Suffolk Redford Labour Migration p 94
2 4 For a review of the evidence see N Gash Rural Unemployment 1815-1834 EconomicHistory Review VI No 1 (Oct 1935) The records of the Emigration Inquiry of 1826-1827supply additional evidence of redundant labor in the southern rural counties See ClaphamThe Railway Age pp 64-65
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 171
of arable farming found in the wheat-growing counties threw workersentirely on the parish rates for three or four winter months Seasonalunemployment was much less of a problem in the West where nowheat was grown This might explain why the Speenhamland policywas not adopted in the western counties25 The main wheat-growingarea lay east of Cobdens famous line from Inverness to Southamptonand the bulk of the domestic wheat supply was produced on the stiffclay lands of eight southeastern counties There is a striking coincidencetherefore between the spread of Speenhamland and the productionof wheat Moreover the wheat-producing counties were also areas ofmaximum recent enclosure20 Although it was mostly waste landswhich were enclosed in this period thus adding to employment oppor-tunities the enclosure movement increased the concentration on wheatgiving rise to the characteristic problem of winter unemployment
Furthermore the practice of boarding young unmarried farmworkers and guaranteeing them a fixed income irrespective of weatherwhich was still very common in the North had by this time given wayin the South to the day laborer hired at standard rates Thus seasonalunemployment became a social problem in southern agricultural coun-ties which had to be dealt with by public action The solution was theRoundsman System which took up the slack by letting everyone workat low intensity to have allowed wages to fall in order to clear thelabor market would only have further reduced the productivity oflabor via its depressing effect on the caloric value of the workers diets
In die nature of the case it is very difficult to obtain direct evidenceof disguised unemployment and in practice it may be impossible todistinguish visible seasonal unemployment from invisible structuralunemployment Indeed since the labor surplus is disguised by re-ducing the required effort of each worker the situation gives the ap-pearance of a labor deficit at low wage levels At higher wages thework done by each man would increase so rapidly that the deficitwould be converted into a labor surplus In other words substandardwages which are nevertheless above die level that automatic marketforces would produce are part of die mechanism which disguises apool of surplus manpower in an underdeveloped country Disguisedunemployment may be said to exist when it is possible to releaseworkers by means of a simple reorganization of production widiout
2 5 G C Fussell M Compton Agricultural Adjustments after the Napoleonic WarsEconomic History (Feb 1939) show that it was the grain-growing areas which werehit hardest in the postwar years
2 6 Clapham The Railway Age pp 19-22 124 467
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
172 Mark Blaug
significantly affecting output but history rarely performs that decisiveexperiment and so we must fall back on inference
Apart from direct evidence of seasonal and technological unemploy-ment in English agriculture we have other reasons to believe that thecountryside was overpopulated at this time By 1834 manufacturingwas already effectively concentrated in the large towns of LancashireCheshire and Yorkshire Previously it had been scattered throughoutthe country districts The most famous example of the decay of localindustry in this era is die migration of the woolen and worsted industryfrom East Anglia to the West Riding But all through the South insay 1800 one would have found here and there malthouses andbreweries iron paper snuff and flour mills leather parchment andprinting works silk-spinning and silk-weaving factories and varioushome industries making hose ribbons laces strings and cotton goods27
The gradual disappearance of this source of demand for labor in ruralareas is rarely given its proper due in accounting for the increasedburden of poor relief expenditures To be sure the decay of rural in-dustries was a very slow process which took place rapidly in the secondrather than the first half of the nineteenth century But in the secondhalf of the century the rate of emigration from rural districts wascommensurate with the decline of employment opportunities in thecountryside It was the relative immobility of rural labor that madedie decay of cottage industry a serious problem in the heyday of theIndustrial Revolution
The abolition of outdoor relief to the unemployed in 1834 at leastin the agricultural counties of die South did not by itself solve theproblem of structural unemployment in die countryside Even tenyears later when reliable figures about the number of people on relieffirst became available the Speenhamland counties headed the list with12-15 Pe r c e n t degf t n e population on relief whereas the percentagerelieved in the non-Speenhamland counties was typically no morethan 6-7 per cent28 What is more in the 1851 census all the Speenham-land counties were found to be losing population to London or to thefactory towns of the Northmdashdie only exception being Warwickshirecontaining Birmingham29 This fact alone is indicative of rural over-population in the first half of the century
2 7 See Lord Ernie English Farming Past and Present (6th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1961) pp 308-12
2 8 The official returns for the year 1844 are found in J R McCulloch A Descriptive andStatistical Account of the British Empire (1854) II p 670
2 9 Redford Labour Migration appendix 1 map A
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 173
VII
We bring our analysis of the Old Poor Law to a close by brieflyconsidering the remaining items in the traditional bill of indictmentit promoted the growth of population it lowered rents it reducedyeomanry and most general of all it depressed agricultural outputby destroying incentives
It may be surprising that we have come so far without saying verymuch about the Malthusian objection to the Old Poor Law It issimply that not much can be said It is worth noting of course thatthe rate of population growth was no smaller in Scotland and Irelandwhere earned incomes were never supplemented by the Poor Lawauthorities Malthus himself added an appendix to the 1826 editionof his Essay on the Principles of Population which conceded that theOld Poor Law did not in fact greatly encourage population
The residence requirements of the Settlement Act he argued gavelandlords a motive to pull down cottages on their estates the scarcityof rural housing kept the Poor Laws from encouraging marriages Bethat as it may estimates of birth and death rates for this period dependon the baptisms and burials entered in the parish registers and as hasbeen shown recently there was a marked increase in the failure to reg-ister between 1780 and 1820 moreover the deficiencies in registrationwere not randomly distributed among counties30 This renders sus-pect any quantitative statement about the effects of the Old Poor Lawon population growth
Nevertheless it has been argued that the death rate only became animportant element in the population explosion after 1820 not asis usually alleged after 1780 Between 1780 and 1820 it was the risingbirth rate which enlarged the size of families and this was due in partto the Old Poor Law31 Most of the Speenhamland counties had fer-tility ratios above the national average and Sussex had the highestfertility ratio of any county in 1821 But the northern industrial coun-ties also showed fertility ratios above the national average After1821 fertility ratios began to fall in the Speenhamland counties eitherbecause of stricter administration of relief or because of the agricultural
3 0 J T Krause Changes in English Fertility and Mortality 1781-1850 Economic HistoryReview 2nd Series IX (August 1958)
M-lbid and T H Marshall The Population Problem During the Industrial RevolutionA Note on the Present State of the Controversy Economic History 1929 reprinted in Essays inEconomic History ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1954) I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
174 Mark Blaug
revival But similarly fertility ratios fell even faster in the North Afertility ratio however is not the same thing as the fertility or crudebirth rate being defined as the number of children between zero andfour years per 1000 women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nineHigh fertility ratios may be produced by a fall in infant mortalityswelling the number of births registered In the Speenhamland coun-ties more generous relief may have worked to reduce the number ofinfant deaths and in this way increased registered births To be surethis implies that the Old Poor Law did promote population growthbut via the death rate rather than the birth rate
It has also been argued that the family endowment features of Speen-hamland induced farmers to hire married men with children ratherthan single men as a method of lightening the rate burden thusdiscouraging family limitation This may have been an important con-sideration in small parishes where farmers knew the private circum-stances of each hired hand But in larger parishes an expressed prefer-ence for married men must have encouraged workers to misrepresenttheir situation On the whole there is no persuasive evidence that asthe saying went at the time population was raised by bounties Eventhe bastardy laws which made it possible for unmarried mothers toclaim support from a putative father do not explain the increase inillegitimate birdis in the Speenhamland counties down to 1834 Ille-gitimacy was even higher in the northern industrial counties wherethe laws of bastardy were not stringently enforced It seems that thePoor Laws as Rickman said in the preamble to the census of 1821were much less conducive to an Increase of Population than they areusually stated to be in Argument
Next there is the contention that the Old Poor Law operated to de-press rents This argument depends entirely upon the way in whichthe poor rates were actually assessed They were paid in the first in-stance by farmers and other estate-dwellers not by landlords Assess-ments seem to have been based on the annual value of lands and realestate occupied but both the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 andCannan the modern historian of local rating in England were unableto determine the exact principle upon which they were calculated priorto 183582 It is clear that farmers bore the brunt of the rates even inindustrial districts and when rates were rising they may have pressedlandlords for a reduction in rents We recall however that the relief
3 2 E Cannan The History of Local Rates in England (4th ed London Longmans Green ampCo 1927) p 80
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 175
bill varied in the same direction as the income of farmers Hence it isfar from obvious that rents were in fact reduced when the rates rose
Wild charges about the poor rates eating up all rents circulatedduring and after the Napoleonic wars The rates were set by the jus-tices of the peace the wealthy landowners of the county who paidrates only insofar as they were occupiers of estates The pressure onrents when rates were rising if it came at all came only after a lapseof time determined by the customary length of tenant leases in thelocality With tenants-at-will rentals might respond quickly to anupward trend in poor rates but leases of seven to fourteen years werenot uncommon and these must have been very insensitive to increasedoverhead costs incurred by tenants Thus the link between rising ratesand falling rents made itself felt in different degrees in different coun-ties supposing of course that there really was such a link The prob-lem is further complicated by the fact that a multitude of noneconomicconsiderations governed the relationship between landlord and tenantlandlords with political ambitions were sometimes willing to chargelower rents to favored tenants For the Speenhamland county of War-wickshire the only county in which this subject has been investigatedit proved impossible to discover any connection between land rentalsand ratable value as given in the parochial assessments33 Neverthelessit is theoretically plausible that the incidence of the rates fell ultimatelyupon landlords but we know so little about the trend in land rentalsafter 1815 that it must be left an open question34
The idea of the disappearance of yeomanry in this period is dealtwith more quickly Property owners were not eligible for relief andso it is argued the Old Poor Law discriminated against the cottage-proprietor seeking employment as well as the smallholder who neverused hired labor but had to pay his share of the rates But if the yeo-man or occupying owner can ever be said to have disappeared fromthe land it was in the eighteenth and not in the nineteenth centurythat he vanished35 There is evidence of some decline in the number
3 3 A W Ashby One Hundred Years of Poor Law Administration in a WarwickshireVillage Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History ed P Vinogradoff (Oxford ClarendonPress 1912) III 57-58
3 4 For the available evidence see Gayer et al Economic Fluctuations pp 927-298BClapham The Railway Age pp 98-105 430-32 E Davies The Small Landowners
1780-1832 in The Light of the Land Tax Assessments Economic History Review 1927reprinted in Essays in Economic History I J D Chambers Enclosure and the Small Land-owner Economic History Review X No 2 (Nov 1940) J D Chambers Enclosure andLabor Supply in the Industrial Revolution Economic History Review 2nd Series V No 3(i953)-
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
176 Mark Blaug
of family farms after 1815 but it is impossible to separate the burdenof poor rates from the many other difficulties which afflicted small-holders in the years of deflation after Waterloo
Nor is the alleged decline in the efficiency of agricultural workersunder the influence of the Old Poor Law discernible in statistics onproduction There are no reliable series on wheat barley and oats pro-duction in this period but isolated unofficial estimates all suggest acontinued increase in output per acre during the first half of the nine-teenth century Despite the fact that population had doubled in thosefifty years imports of agricultural commodities never formed an im-portant portion of the total supply and contemporary observers wereconvinced that productivity in agriculture had risen36 In view of thefailure of the money wages of agricultural workers to fall as fast asfood prices through 1824-1850 it is difficult to deny this conviction
We have come to the end of our journey to find that hardly any ofthe dire effects ascribed to the Old Poor Law stand up in the light ofavailable empirical knowledge This is negative proof at best but evenin theory the weight of forces is not all in one direction We have toremember that a system of local rating provides its own checks to ex-cessive expenditures The Allowance System for example added tothe wages paid by farmers with one hand what it took from them inrates with the otiier the link between taxpayer and beneficiary wasmuch closer than it is with modern income-support programs Justas it is now realized that the Settlement Laws did not invariably workwith the harsh and wasteful rigidity so often assumed37 so the Speen-hamland policy was not always as imprudently administered as hasbeen thought And just as the extent to which paupers were reallytransported by parish officers cannot be deduced from the statute booksso the actual effects of the Allowance System cannot be inferred fromthe purple passages of the Poor Law Report of 1834
VIII
The Old Poor Law with its use of outdoor relief to assist the under-paid and to relieve the unemployed was in essence a device for dealingwith the problem of surplus labor in the lagging rural sector of a rapidly
3 6 See M Blaug Ricardian Economics A Historical Study (New Haven Yale Univ Press1958) pp 183-84
3 7 See D Marshall The Old Poor Law 1662-1795 Economic History Review 1937reprinted in Essays in Economic History I
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 177
expanding but still underdeveloped economy And considering thequality of social administration in the day it was by no means an un-enlightened policy The Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 thoughtotherwise and deliberately selected the facts so as to impeach the ex-isting administration on predetermined lines Not only did they failin any way to take account of the special problem of structural unem-ployment in the countryside but what evidence they did present con-sisted of little more than picturesque anecdotes of maladministrationEven the elaborate questionnaire which they circulated among theparishes was never analyzed or reduced to summary form No attemptwas made to take a census of the poor and to this day we know moreabout the nature and composition of the pauper host in 1802 than in1834 Anyone who has read the Report of 1834 can testify to the over-whelming cumulative effect of the endless recital of ills from themouths of squires magistrates overseers and clergymen But as evi-dence of a social malady it has little value particularly on the ulti-mate question of the corrupting influence of lavish relief in what agewould it not be possible to collect complaints from the upper classesabout the laziness of workers
Nowhere in the Report is there any hint of a quantitative view ofthe problem This ignoring of statistics as the Webbs remarkedled in the diagnosis to disastrous errors in proportion and made thesuggested remedial measures lopsided and seriously imperfect Forexample Nassau William Senior who wrote the exposition of theevils of the old system in the Report surmised that the able-bodiedpaupers and their families now amount to a million Instead theWebbs calculated that about 100000 people were relieved indoors and900000 outdoors in 1834 of which perhaps 100000 or at most 300000if we count all their dependents were able-bodied workers38 In sub-sequent years the Commissioners were to discover to their grief thatthe bulk of relief recipients were indeed not the able-bodied butrather the helpless and dependent sick aged and infirm89 No wonder
3 8 Webbs Old Poor Law History p 88n3 9 This fact was carefully and perhaps intentionally hidden from the public Throughout
the remainder of the century the Poor Law authorities displayed an incredible reluctance tosupply any quantitative information about the body of people relieved other than the ratioof outdoor to indoor relief recipients Since some children and old people received outdoorrelief while a proportion of the able-bodied did enter the workhouse we have no way ofknowing just how many of the able-bodied received unemployment compensation the able-bodied were not even defined by the Act of 1834 I o r purposes of administration SeeM Dessauer Unemployment Records 1848-1859 Economic History Review X No 1(Feb 1940)
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
178 Mark Blaug
the harsh but salutary Act fell short at nearly every point of affectinga sweeping reform Gradually so gradually as to be almost impercepti-ble to contemporaries the principles of 1834 were undermined inpractice by the administration of successive governments while com-peting public services increasingly took over the functions of the PoorLaw40 The virtual abandonment of the Malthusian theory of popula-tion under the influence of the downward trend in birdis the growingrecognition of urban destitution caused by involuntary unemploymentthe concern over sweated trades all these contributed to the break-ing-up of the Poor Law Nevertheless the Report of 1834 remained aforce against which all changes had to make their way and the publicwas still told by the Poor Law authorities that any abrogation of theprinciples of 1834 would give a spur to population and thus bringwages down As late as 1893 Alfred Marshall remarked to the RoyalCommission on the Aged Poor It seems that whenever I read PoorLaw literature of today I am taken back to the beginning of the cen-tury everything that is said about economics has the flavour of thatold time
MARK BLAUG Yale University
APPENDIX A
POOR RELIEF PER HEAD BY COUNTIES s d)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N R
1802
22716113111191511221151251141211211621451241137-36-47665
1812
33-i22924517627116919-420017524717024101911148134115101012684
1821
23819115816617016018015-71332001491911921661201089-5
13096
1831
194187169161115-915-3184154115172138161116101179-790
66111189
Average 123 188 164 138
4 0 See H L Beales The New Poor Law History 1931 reprinted in Essays in EconomicHistory ed E M Carus-Wilson (London Edward Arnold 1962) III
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 179
APPENDIX A Continued)
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1802 1812 1821 1831
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLancasterMiddlesexMonmouthWales
AverageSelect Towns
ManchesterBirminghamBristolLiverpool
13-6122100
115103101105
92
81188666116115106966711684-9684-58780
5-7
84
4-762
5-766
17118413613101 1 1 1
1381791010
12311791186
100
9-5102911
11571169997-5
1079-i7-7
114
98966-56-5
18514111311151IOI
123140
12-391191082810849-i91
IOI
1047-u7-4
110
561110
7-97-2
102
3-97119862
14513101011
13-2769-i
114110810885-7666-3686861082
6356984-5
IOI
5-57-2
8-7
Sources The counties are listed in each category roughly in order of average relief perhead The figures are obtained by dividing the annual expenditures for the poor reportedfor each county by the county population as given by the census returns Up to 1849 Poor LawReturns were reported annually for the year that ends at Lady Day (March 25) Hence figuresfor say 1803 are here regarded as referring to 1802 and so forth The available official returnsup to 1830 are conveniently found in Marshall Digest of All the Accounts pp 36-37 Thefigures for the towns are also derived from Marshall ibid p 41 The returns for the year1831-1833 are given in P P 1835 (444) XLVII The figures for county populations arederived from the decennial censuses of 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 as given by J R McCullochDescriptive and Statistical Account of the British Empire II 400
Andrew Ure in his Philosophy of Manufactures (1835) p 477 gives figures for poorrelief per head in what he calls factory counties for 1801 1811 1821 and 1831 based ashe says on the official returns Since poor relief expenditures were not returned for the years1801 and 1811 he probably applied a method similar to my own dividing decennial censusdata on population into figures on relief spending for the years 1802 and 1812 His series gen-erally agree with mine except that they arc all unaccountably lower for 1821
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
year
s18
0218
1218
1318
1418
1518
1618
1718
18
o 18
2018
2118
2218
2318
2418
2518
2618
2718
2818
2918
3018
3118
3218
33
Tot
al(pound
000)
407
86
676
629
55
419
572
56
918
789
07
532
733
06
958
635
95
773
573
45
787
592
96
441
629
86
332
682
9
679
97
037
679
16
317
TO
TA
L
POO
R
Inde
x1
00
164
154
133
14
0
169
193
184
18
0
17
115
61
42
14
11
42
M5
158
154
155
167
167
173
167
155
AP
PE
ND
IX B
RE
LIE
F E
XP
EN
DIT
UR
ES
INA
vera
geP
rice
of
Whe
at p
erQ
uart
er(s
d)
691
012
66
109
974
-465
778
696
11
863
746
671
056
144
-753
-463
11
686
588
586
605
663
643
664
588
521
1
Inde
x of
Rel
ief
inW
heat
10
0
90 98 1
25
14
9
15
113
914
816
817
619
42
23
185
155
148
188
184
179
17
01
82
18
2
199
20
4
EN
GL
AN
D
AN
D
Rel
ief
inSp
eenh
amla
ndC
ount
ies
( pound
000)
178
22
975
267
22
223
227
92
971
337
43
174
306
92
894
267
32
549
247
32
498
257
92
704
261
62
683
293
72
905
299
72
903
259
6
WA
LE
S
Inde
x1
00
17
0
145
12
5
13
0
17
0
19
0
18
0
17
2
163
15
0
143
139
14
0
145
15
114
71
50
165
163
17
0
163
146
Rel
ief
inO
ther
Cou
ntie
s(pound
000)
229
63
701
362
33
196
344
73
947
451
64
358
426
14
064
368
63
224
326
13289
335O
3738
3649
3892
3894
4040
3888
3721
Index
100
161
160
139
150
171
197
190
85
176
160
140
142
143
146
162
162
160
169
169
176
170
169
Sour
ce
Ave
rage
mon
thly
gaz
ette
pri
ces
per
quar
ter
of
whe
at a
re g
iven
by
Gay
er
Ros
tow
Sc
hwar
tz
Flu
ctua
tions
M
icro
film
Sup
plem
ent
pp
650-
51
Sinc
e th
e po
or r
elie
f fi
gure
s ru
n fr
om M
arch
25
of o
ne y
ear
to M
arch
25
of
the
next
I
have
ave
rage
d an
nual
whe
at p
rice
s on
the
sam
e ba
sis
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 181
APPENDIX C
POOR RELIEF EXPENDITURES IN AGRICULTURAL ANDNONAGRICULTURAL COUNTIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
fears
18021812181318141815
18161817
181818191820
1821
18221823
18241825
1826182718281829183018311832
18331834
18401850
Agricultural(pound000)
1672
2822
2563
21372286
2839
32273028
2891
2748
2568
2370
2409
2443
24922582
25M
2594
2787
27892892
27662586
2295
1772
1723
Index
100
169152128
136170193
181171
164
153140144
146149
153150
i54167167173166
53140
106103
Nonagricultural((000)
2405
383537313281
34384072
464444894440
4211
37913402
3328
3344
3437
3859378437394042
4010
41454025
3732
2232
3U4
3239
Index
100
160
155137
M3170
193187185175158142140
140140161
158155170170
173170
155136130
134
Source Gayer Rostow and Schwartz used decennial census figures on occupational distribu-tion by counties to divide the counties into the two classes Ibid p 1678 Such counties asDevon Kent Somerset Hampshire Salop and the East Riding were borderline cases and thedecision had to be made on die basis of a qualitative judgment Twenty-six counties and theWest Riding were designated nonagricultural the remaining fifteen counties including Eastand North Riding were designated agricultural counties For a terse description of the char-acter of economic activity in each of the counties in this period see McCulloch Descriptiveand Statistical Account I 142-225
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
182 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY MONEY WAGES OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY COUNTIES (s d)
Counties
MiddlesexSurreyKentSussexHantsBerks
Southeastern AverageIndex number
OxfordHertsBucksNorthantsHuntsBedsCambridge
South Midlands AverageIndex number
EssexSuffolkNorfolk
Eastern AverageIndex number
WiltsDorsetDevonCornwallSomerset
Southwestern AverageIndex number
GloucesterHerefordSalopStaffordWorcesterWarwick
West Midlands AverageIndex number
795
80106io61009090
961 0 0
86808070
867682
80100
90106
90
9-61 0 0
848070867-3
7101 0 0
7080
7-676867-6
7-81 0 0
1824
113108119968689
101107
8190
8380
7-68690
84105
948392
81194
7-6611768-382
7899
9-370810
10782810
89 5
1833
130120131121102105
1110126
101110102103105100106
104129
103911
109
104109
91829081186
891 1 2
968192
11196
1010
98126
1837
1161061201079690
106i n
86969690
969696
9-3114
104104104
104109
80
7-680
8988
82104
908090
12096
100
9-7124
1850
11096
11610690
76
910104
9090
8690
8690
7-6
88109
8070
86
71083
7-376868887
81103
70857-3967-886
81107
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
The Myth of the Old Poor Law 183
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Counties
LeicesterRutlandLincolnNottsDerby
North Midlands AverageIndex number
ChesterLancashireYork W RYork E RYork N RDurhamNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmoreland
Northern AverageIndex number
MonmouthWales
General AverageIndex number
1795
IIO90
10690
9-3
991 0 0
90136IIO11310090
10690
100
1041 0 0
9068
8111 0 0
1824
910mdash
1021031010
103106
108125125118103116115122120
117 3
10080
9-7108
1833
1121221241210120
123127
910122115IIO114IIO115108IIO
1111 0 5
10882
1081 2 0
1837
100mdash
120120120
II61 2 0
130128120120120120120120120
122I l 8
10676
103 5
1830
96mdash
100100IIO
IOI1 0 5
120136140120IIOIIOIIO13-0120
122118
198611
96108
Sources The data are drawn from A I Bowley The Statistics of Wages in the UnitedKingdom During the Last Hundred Years Agricultural Wages Journal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Dec 1898) The 1795 figures are derived from Eden and Young the 1824 figurescome from the same committee which circulated the questionnaire on the allowance system the1833 and 1837 figures rest on returns from about 1000 parishes collected by the Poor LawCommissioners the 1851 figures are given by Caird All of these represent die average of sum-mer and winter wages in those counties where free board or lodging was general they includesuch payments in kind The averages for the districts are simple arithmetic averages becauseno adequate weights were obtainable Bowleys index numbers based on 1892 have beenreduced to 1795
Slightly different figures based on other audiorities are presented in A L BowleyWages in the Nineteenth Century (1900) chs 4-5 but the differences are negligible These arereprinted in Lord Ernie English Farming Appendix IX widi comparable data down to 1926giving an overview of trends throughout die whole of the nineteenth century
After due reflection Bowley concluded that index numbers found for wages can be adoptedfor earnings widiout alteration See his article The Statistics of Wages in die United KingdomDuring the Last Hundred Years Earnings and General Averages Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society (Sept 1889) and his Wages in the Nineteenth Century pp 41-43 For amore skeptical view see O R McGregor Introduction Pt 2 After 1815 to Lord ErnieEnglish Fanning pp cxix-cxxi
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use
184 Mark Blaug
APPENDIX E
INDEX OF WEEKLY EARNINGS OF AGRICULTURALWORKERS BY COUNTIES (1795 = 100)
Speenhamland Counties
SussexBucksWiltsBedsBerksHuntsSuffolkNorfolkDorsetEssexCambridgeOxfordNorthantsLeicesterWarwickDevonNottsYork E RYork N RAverage
1824 1833 1837 1850
9410590
3968880
101
861 1 2
n o96
114
871 2 0
108
51 2 2
1031 0 0
1211 3 0
i n
1411 1 4
13990
1 2 0
109
1 2 3
1 3 0
1211 5 0
108
1451 3 0
1411 2 2
1 1 21 2 4
1 0 41 2 0
951261 1 2
1 1 2
99113
941 2 3
1 2 0
103128
871 3 2
i n
1331251 2 0
106
1 0 2105
87120
83100
80
939491
n o107
128
85 5123
n o125109
1 0 4
Non-Speenhamland Counties 1824 1833 1837 1850
KentHantsSurreyHertsWorcesterRutlandHerefordLincolnSomersetGloucesterYork W RStaffordChesterCornwallDerbyDurhamSalopNorthumberlandCumberlandWestmorelandLances terMiddlesexMonmouthWalesAverage for England and Wales
1 1 2
85101
113
96mdash8899
1 1 2
133107
M3118
97116
14496
108
1351 2 2
991 2 4
i n1 2 0
108
1 2 6
1 0 4
1171 4 21 2 0
1 4 0
i n138121
1 4 0
i n
1 5 11081 0 61 2 4
1481 3 01 0 7
1 3 0
1 0 8
981651161 2 2
1 2 0
115
921 0 0120
i nmdash
1 1 2
51 2 0
5101
1591451 0 3
1 3 01 5 0
118
113
1451 2 298
1731 1 6
1 1 2
5
1 0 99 0
901139 0
mdash1 0 5
96119
1 0 0
1 2 41 2 5
1331021 2 0
138
9 21 0 6
1561 2 2106
1 2 3
108
1 0 5
108
available at httpswwwcambridgeorgcoreterms httpsdoiorg101017S0022050700103808Downloaded from httpswwwcambridgeorgcore Centre Universitaire on 09 Feb 2017 at 231150 subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use