Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:38:01.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘I am not my father's keeper’: Families and the Elderly in Nineteenth Century England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

David Thomson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a range of late-twentieth century societies grapple with welfare costs that seem to rise inexorably, a ‘return’ to former priorities and emphases is often mooted. Shifting some of the burden of welfare back to the family from whence it came is attractive to policy makers, if not to recipients. The underlying assumption of ‘back to the family’ reformers seems to be that because family-based social welfare worked in the past, it may now provide a way out of the expensive responsibilities facing the Welfare State. The words used vary; but whether it is a ‘return to Victorian values’ or some other formulae that is being extolled, the reliance upon self-help and family responsibility is unmistakable.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Fall 1984 , pp. 265 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1984

Access options

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

References

1. 43 Eliz. c.2.

2. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765-1769, 4 vols. (Chicago, 1977) i, ch. 16Google Scholar.

3. The reason for the uncertainty as to how far back in time the extensive public support for the elderly extends is that pre-1800 records have not been analyzed as yet in a manner which will reveal this information. The nature of pre-1800 Poor Law and population records is very different from that of nineteenth-century materials, and there must remain considerable doubt as to whether it will ever be possible to replicate the nineteenth-century studies for earlier periods.

4. The discussion of the Poor Law given here represents a summary of ideas and evidence presented in Thomson, David, ‘Provision for the Elderly in England, 1830-1908’, (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1980)Google Scholar.

5. David Thomson, ‘The Decline of Social Welfare: Falling State Support for the Elderly Since Early Victorian Times’, Ageing and Society (forthcoming, 1984).

6. See, e.g., the guidebook for twentieth-century Poor Law officers; Moss, J., The Relieving Officer's Handbook (London, 1902Google Scholar) with many subsequent editions during the first four decades of the present century.

7. Rex v. Munden, T. 5 G. Str. 5 190. (1719). This decision is discussed in Bott, E., A Collection of Decisions Upon the Poors' Laws (London, 1771) 46Google Scholar; The case is also mentioned in Burn, R., The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer, 5 vols., 24th ed. (London, 1824) iv, 163Google Scholar.

8. Rex v. Monday, T. 5 G. Fort. 303. (1719). Bott, supra note 6.

9. Maund v. Mason, L.R. 9 Q.B. 254. Case discussed in Steer, J., Parish Law, 4th ed. (London, 1881) 347–51Google Scholar; The precedent is elaborated further in Moss, supra note 6, (7th ed., 1938) 281.

10. Burn, supra note 7, 164.

11. See Steer, supra note 9, 347-51, case reference 2 C & P 449; and in Moss, supra note 6, 283.

12. Rex v. Jones, 2 C & P 449. (1710). See Bott, supra note 7, 42, 347-51, and in Moss, supra note 6, 283.

13. In New Zealand, for example, a Destitute Persons Ordinance was introduced in 1846, in which the wording of the English Poor Law Act of 1601 was twisted so as to make persons directly responsible for their poorer relatives. The Ordinance remained part of the law well into the twentieth century, and its provisions were used very frequently in securing support for elderly persons. Suing children for a share of their wealth was possible under the terms of the Ordinance, and court records show that private prosecutions were not uncommon.

14. Rex v. Gully, E. 1 Geo. 1, Fol. 47, (1714); Rex v. Tripping, T. 4 G. Vin title Poor 424 (1719).

15. Rex v. Woodford, E. 20 G. 2. MSS. (1747). Ibid. 42.

16. Rex v. Halifax, H. 12 An. cases of S.52. Moss. (1713). Burn, supra note 7, 843; supra note 6, 280, reemphasized for his readers the point that ability to pay was entirely at the discretion of the magistrates.

17. From 1835 on a central Poor Law authority was in continuous existence in London, although in its early years its status was not permanent but was reconfirmed by Parliament at five year intervals.

18. Two sets of records have been used: Minutes of the Board of Guardians of the Poor for the Union of Ampthill; Bedfordshire County Record Office class PUAM; Minutes of the Ampthill Division Petty Sessions; Bedfordshire County Record Office class PSA 1/4.

19. Report of H.M. Commissioners for Inquiry into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws, House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, xxvii [hereafter PP] (1834) 24–25Google Scholar.

20. Minutes of the Board of Guardians of the Poor for the Bedford Union; Bedfordshire County Record Office class PUBM; Minutes of the Bedford Division Petty Sessions; Bedfordshire County Record Office class PSB 1.

21. See, e.g., 1st Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, PP (1835) xxv, 6Google Scholar; and 3rd Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, PP (1837) xxxi, 37ffGoogle Scholar.

22. Thomson, supra note 4, part ii.

23. Reported in 2nd Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1873) xxix, 68–75Google Scholar.

24. Answers given to Questions 595-97 [hereafter Q595-97] in evidence to the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor [hereafter RC Aged Poor] (1893 95); PP (1895) xivGoogle Scholar.

25. 3rd Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1874) xxv, 188Google Scholar.

26. RC Aged Poor, Q573.

27. 5th Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1876) xxxi, xviiiGoogle Scholar.

28. RC Aged Poor, Q600-3, Q2049, Q2305, Q3612, Q5435, Q5569-72, Q6267, Q14377.

29. 22nd Annual Report of the Poor Law Board, PP (1870) xxxv, 22Google Scholar. (The Local Government Board superceded the Poor Law Board as the central administrative authority of the Poor Law in 1871).

30. 4th Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1875) xxxi, 180–81Google Scholar.

31. 8th Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1878-1879) xxviii, 127Google Scholar.

32. Ibid. 110.

33. Two sources were used in tracing developments in Cambridge: Minutes of the Board of Guardians of the Poor of the Cambridge Union; Cambridgeshire County Record Office class G/C/M, and the Cambridge Chronicle, a local newspaper in which the weekly meetings of the Guardians and of the Cambridge Division Petty Sessions were reported in detail; copies held in the Local History Collection, Cambridge Public Library.

34. Agreements for the Payments of Contributions towards the Maintenance of Relatives, 1889-1930, Cambridge Union: Cambridgeshire County Record Office class G/C/AZ 9.

35. Register of Contribution Orders upon Relatives, 1910-1928, Ipswich Union: East Suffolk County Record Office class DD1/28/8/1-4.

36. See, e.g., Minutes of the Board of Guardians of the Cambridge Union, for May 12, 1880.

37. RC Aged Poor, Q6471.

38. Ibid. Q2283.

39. The development of these laws is examined in Exley, C., The Guide to Poor Relief (London 1932)Google Scholar.

40. 7th Annual Report of the Local Government Board, PP (1878) xxvii, pt 1, xxviii-ix, 51–57Google Scholar.

41. RC Aged Poor, Q1333.

42. Ibid. Q2860-5, £051, 5513, 16380-1.

43. Details of the Bill are to be found in House of Commons, Public Bills, PP (1890-1891) viGoogle Scholar. The progress of the Bill during the 1890s is recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons.