The Meaning of Poverty

Between 1830 and 1914 there were two period when state intervention in British social policy significantly increased. The first of these was in the 1830s and 1840s, and the second in the Edwardian years at the beginning of the twentieth century. Fundamental in the first burst of reforming activity was the New Poor Law of 1834, which centred round the workhouse system. It gave conditional welfare for a minority, with public assistance at the price of social stigma and loss of voting rights. Some Edwardian reforms still retained conditions on take-up, as in the first old-age pensions in 1908, where tests of means and character eligibility were reminiscent of the Poor Law. Three years later, in 1911, there was a radical departure in the national scheme for insurance against ill health and unemployment that conferred benefits as a result of contributions. It was still a selective scheme in that it was limited to a section of the male population and entirely left out dependent women and children.

The nineteenth century had inherited the attitude that such a state of affairs was both right and proper. Many contemporary writers regarded poverty as a necessary element in society, since only by feeling its pinch could the labouring poor be inspired to work. Thus it was not poverty by pauperism[1] or destitution that was regarded as a social problem. Many early Victorians adopted the attitude that combined fatalism, 'the poor ye have always with you' and moralism: destitution was the result of individual weakness of character. Fraser's Magazine in 1849 commented that: 'So far from rags and filth being the indications of poverty, they are in the large majority of cases, signs of gin drinking, carelessness and recklessness.'

Such cases if congregated together in large numbers seemed to constitute a social menace[2]. It was thinking of this sort that provided the impetus to poor law reform in 1834. Relief continued to be offered but only in the workhouse where the paupers would be regulated and made less comfortable than those of their fellows who chose to stay outside and fend for themselves -- this scheme was known as 'less-eligibility'. Those who were genuinely in dire need would accept the workhouse rather than starve. Those who were not in such straits would prefer to remain independent and thus avoid contracting the morally wasting disease of pauperism. The Poor Law of 1834 provided an important administrative model for future generations -- central policy-making and supervision, local administration -- but the workings of this model were often profoundly disappointing to the advocates of 'less-eligibility' as a final solution to the problem of pauperism. But the issue was not one of pauperism, the issue on which contemporaries focused, but poverty itself.

Poverty is a term that is notoriously difficult to define. In simple terms the failure to provide the basic necessities of life --- food, clothes and shelter -- results in a state of poverty[3]. Put diagrammatically

 

POVERTY OR LACK OF FOOD, CLOTHES,	OR SHELTER
POSSIBLY CAUSED BY	MAY LEAD TO
UNEMPLOYMENT [LAZINESS OR ECONOMIC RECESSION]	MISERY
OLD AGE	DEMORALISATION, RESENTMENT, APATHY
SICKNESS	VIOLENCE
LOW WAGES	CRIME
HIGH PRICES	SQUALOR

 

British society in the nineteenth century was poor by modern standards. The net national income per head at 1900 prices has been estimated as £18 in 1855 and £42 in 1900. Even the higher paid artisan might find himself at a time of depression unable to get work even if willing and anxious to do so. Most members of the working class experienced poverty at some period of their lives and, compared to the middle classes, their experience of poverty was likely to be a far more frequent, if not permanent one.

It was not until near the end of the nineteenth century that poverty was first measured in any systematic fashion and most of the evidence of the extent and causes of poverty is from around 1900. The number of paupers had long been known: they amounted to about 9 per cent of the population in the 1830s and fell to less than 3 per cent by 1900. But far more suffered from poverty than ever applied for workhouse relief. In 1883 Andrew Mearns in his Bitter Cry of Outcast London claimed than as much as a quarter of the population of London received insufficient income to maintain physical health. Impressionistic claims like this led to scientific investigation, encouraged by Charles Booth to begin his survey of the London poor in 1886. He found that as much as 30 per cent of the population of London and 38 per cent of the working class lived below the poverty line.

Many people criticised Booth's conclusions and pointed to the unique position of London. However, B. Seebohm Rowntree did a similar survey of his native York and in 1899 published conclusions that mirrored those of Booth. He distinguished between 'primary poverty' and 'secondary poverty'. Primary poverty was a condition where income was insufficient even if every penny was spent wisely. Secondary poverty occurred when those whose incomes were theoretically sufficient to maintain physical efficiency suffered poverty as a consequence of 'insufficient spending'. 10 per cent of York's population and 15 per cent of its working classes were found to be in primary poverty. A further 18 per cent of the whole population and 28 per cent of the working classes were living in secondary poverty. Rowntree also emphasised the changing incidence of poverty at different stages of working class life -- the 'poverty cycle' with its alternating periods of want and comparative plenty.

Other surveys followed the work of Booth and Rowntree. The most notable was the investigation in 1912-13 of poverty in Stanley [County Durham], Northampton, Warrington and Reading by A.L.Bowley and A.R.Burnett-Hurst. They found that the levels of poverty reflected different economic conditions and that among the working class population primary poverty accounted for 6 per cent, 9 per cent, 15 per cent and 29 per cent in the respective towns. These conclusions undermined the assumption made by both Booth and Rowntree that similar levels of poverty might be found in most British towns. In fact, the diversity of labour market conditions was reflected by great variety in the levels and causes of poverty. It is important to examine the reliance that can be placed on the results of early poverty surveys.

Few of the results can be accepted with complete confidence:

1. Booth relied heavily on data from school attendance officers and families with children of school age -- itself a cause of poverty -- were over-represented in what he supposed to be a cross section of the population.
2. Rowntree's estimates of food requirements were later regarded as over-generous by nutritionists and he later conceded that his 1899 poverty lines were 'too rough to give reliable results'.
3. Working class respondents, confronted by middle class investigators were notoriously liable to underestimate income. Most poor law and charity assistance was means tested and the poorer respondents, suspecting that investigators might have some influence in the disposal of relief, took steps not to jeopardise this. Income acquired illegally was particularly likely to remain hidden.

It is difficult to compare these levels with poverty at other times. Recent attempts by historians to assess approximate numbers that lives below Rowntree's poverty line in mid-nineteenth century Preston, York and Oldham all suggest poverty levels higher than those at the time of the 1899 survey. This is not surprising as between 1850 and 1900 money wages rose considerably and many more insured themselves against sickness and other contingencies.

---

[1] A 'pauper' can simply be defined as an individual who was in receipt of benefits from the state. A labourer who was out of work was termed an able-bodied pauper, whereas the sick and elderly were called impotent paupers. Relief was given in a variety of ways. Outdoor relief was when the poor received help either in money or in kind. Indoor relief was when the poor entered a workhouse or house of correction to receive help. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 said that paupers should all receive indoor relief.

[2] It is very important to remember the 'revolutionary psychosis' that afflicted many during the first half of the nineteenth century. Poverty was seen in this revolutionary light.

[3] On this subject the best and briefest introduction is M.E. Rose The Relief of Poverty 1834-1914, Macmillan, 2^nd. ed., 1986.

Living in the countryside

There is a tendency for studies of nineteenth century Britain to concentrate on urban life and neglect the rural dimension. This reflects a period of unparalleled industrialisation, urbanisation and unprecedented urban problems. Yet in 1851 nearly half of the population of Britain lived in rural areas and many more had been born in the countryside or had experienced rural life. It can be argued that for most of the nineteenth century a rural view of the world continued to exert a significant influence in Britain. Successive Reform Acts may have redistributed power after 1832, much political power and personal wealth remained in the countryside until the late nineteenth century[1].  Two further myths about rural life should be dispelled.

First, there is a view that rural life was in some way separate and distinct from that of towns. In fact rural life in Britain had never been separate from the towns and, as nineteenth century urbanisation developed, the interconnectedness of rural and urban became stronger and more obvious. Even in the 1830s few areas had no contact with urban areas and by 1850 few rural dwellers had no contact with the nearest market town; by the 1890s even upland Wales and the Highland and Islands of Scotland were being integrated socially and economically into a regional system focused increasingly on the larger towns. This connection took various forms:

• Communications developments, especially the railways, linked most villages into a comprehensive and complex transport system.
• Towns were economically dependent on rural labour.
• Through rural to urban migration which could lead to family links between town and countryside.
• In some cases through the rural-based but urban-financed putting out industries.
• Through social interaction between rural and urban at fairs, markets and other meeting places.

Secondly, that life in the countryside was easier than that of urban dwellers. Commentators like Engels misleadingly contrasted the images of an idyllic rural life and the horrors of urban living: 'They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbours....They were, for the most part, strong well-built people....Their children grew up in the fresh country air....while of eight or twelve hours work for them was no question.'

In 1830 rural housing was a mixture of poor quality decaying older properties, poorly built new houses and a minority of decent stone or brick-built cottages for the more prosperous. The nature of work was, in some part, a determinant of the nature of rural housing. Living space was more important for the domestic weaver or knitter who spent much time indoors, than for the farm labourer who toiled for 12 hours a day in the field. In contrast the single migrant who left home to seek work might have been hired at a hiring fair and either given accommodation as a lodger in the master's house [most common in the north and west of England] or housed and fed in sheds or outhouses along with other hired hands as in the arable counties of England in the early nineteenth century. Population growth since the mid eighteenth century had resulted in a crisis in rural housing that had several consequences:

1. Many families were permanently overcrowded.
2. Individual privacy was difficult and much of life, especially the development of friendships and courtship, was lived outside the home in lanes, woods and fields.
3. Marriage was often delayed due to the lack of opportunity to set up home.
4. Epidemic diseases such as smallpox or typhus fever spread rapidly in overcrowded and insanitary conditions.
5. Some landowners maintained 'closed' villages, where accommodation was limited to keep down the size of the population, made the housing situation worse.

In 1830 living conditions could be as unhealthy and harsh as in many towns: a combination of poor housing, lack of employment and poor social prospects frequently impelled townward migration rather than any specific urban attractions. The density of occupation of rural housing was often as high or higher than that in towns. High natural increase in rural areas mostly offset migration losses and rural population densities continued to increase up to the 1840s. In many rural areas the housing supply expanded more slowly than population; indeed some large landowners demolished cottages and took less responsibility for housing their labour force. Many rural parents brought up eight or more children in tiny two-room cottages[2].

The quality of rural housing varied greatly and for the very poor it was often worse than its urban counterpart. Increasingly, urban housing had proper foundations, solid walls and slate roofs. In contrast much rural housing was severely substandard when first built. Most landowners accepted little responsibility for the provision of decent homes and, even in more prosperous areas such as north west England, cottages were often small, cold and wet. In southern England, where there was more abject poverty, cottages often had mud walls, earth floors and neglected thatch roofs.

Such conditions persisted until the 1850s but during the remainder of the century, housing gradually improved as out-migration lessened pressure on the countryside and sanitary and housing reforms began to percolate into rural areas. On large estates and big arable farms there was considerable rebuilding from the 1860s. Nevertheless, not all rural housing was bad: surviving nineteenth century houses include not only good quality homes of landowners, farmers and artisans, but well-built estate cottages and good-quality late eighteenth century dwellings of rural factory workers.

For many rural families poor housing was combined with acute poverty. Between 1815 and the mid-1830s arable England underwent a deep depression. Population growth led to a rural labour surplus that, except in areas where there was alternative employment, led to low wages. James Caird found, in his agricultural survey of 1851, that there was considerable variety in wages between the 'high wage' north and west and 'low wage' south and east. In the West Riding wages were 13-14s per week but in southern counties like Berkshire and Suffolk they were only 7-8s per week. Northern wages were higher because of the greater prosperity of mixed and pastoral areas compared to wheat-growing counties and, particularly, to competition for labour from industrial towns where wages were generally higher. This led to widespread rural distress and rural protests like the Captain Swing riots of 1830 in southern England.

Rural industrial workers were usually better off. In such areas as the south Pennines survival of a dual farming-weaving economy gave some protection against poverty though, as the textile industry became more mechanised and centralised in factories, the distress of rural textile workers became more documented. The effects of rural poverty can be seen in malnutrition and associated ill health. A survey of 1863 showed that most English rural labourers relied heavily on a diet of bread and potatoes, with meat consumption varying from season to season and area to area, though men were generally better fed than the rest of the family. Even so, the food supply in the countryside was rather better than that available to the urban poor: it was fresher and there were more opportunities to supplement it informally or illegally from fishing to poaching or from the cottage garden.

The social composition of rural areas changed during the period 1830 to 1890 in several respects:

1. Selective rural out-migration removed many younger and more active members of the community.
2. Areas close to towns began to experience urban to rural movement of rich families seeking a house in the countryside.
3. Commuter villages grew around cities like Leeds, Manchester and especially London particularly where there were good rail connections.
4. Rural resort areas also began to expand. In the late nineteenth century Windermere became a centre of the invasion of the Lake District for recreation. This was especially true of Manchester merchants who could afford to establish second homes around the fringes of Lake Windermere and elsewhere.

The image of the rural idyll had by the 1890s become firmly implanted as a middle class vision of the countryside that was increasingly imprinted on rural areas through residence, landownership and conservation movements. The National Trust was founded in 1895. However, the reality of rural life in the early years of the twentieth century was, for many, harsh and often unpleasant. Despite increasing mechanisation agricultural work was still hard and poorly regulated, while rural labourers worked longer hours for less pay than most other workers. The National Union of Agricultural Workers was established in 1872 but its membership was low and much of the welfare legislation passed between 1900 and 1914 did not apply to or was ignored by the agricultural sector.

---

[1] The  most  useful general works on rural society are P.Horn The Rural World 1780-1850, Hutchinson, 1980 for the early period and G.E.Mingay The Social History of the English Countryside, Routledge, 1990 throughout. See also the collection edited by Brian Short The English Rural Community, CUP, 1992. A.Howkins Reshaping Rural England, Harper Collins, 1991 deals with the post-1850 period.

[2] W.Hasbach A history of the English Agricultural Labourer, 1908 despite its age, contains much useful information but should now be read in conjunction with  W.A.Armstrong Agricultural Workers 1770-1970, Batsford, 1988. Howard Newby Country Life, Weidenfeld, 1987 is a major and readable study. K.Snell Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England 1660-1900, CUP, 1984 is a mine of information and recent interpretation.