What did the "Old Folks" live on before Government

Looking for Scottish Ancestors

Moderator: Global Moderators

sheilajim
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: san clemente california

What did the "Old Folks" live on before Government

Post by sheilajim » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:55 pm

Hi All

I found out that my GGrandfather died in the Poorhouse Hospital in Paisley. Thanks to Jack, I received the page with information regarding him, from the Library. O:) He is listed as being "Wholly Disabled", and unable to work. He was 72 when he died.

This made me wonder what the rest of my ancestors who were past their working years lived on. Even though they may not have died in the Poorhouse, they might have been on Poor Relief. Was Poor Relief the 19th Century idea of an Old Age Pension?

For instance, I have a GGGGrandfather listed on the 1851 Census as a retired farmer (more likely a farm Laborer). He is more than 81 years old and living with two of his unmarried daughters, who are working as Muslim Flowerers. :? I have a feeling that those two daughters weren't making much money, and I wonder if he could have been on Poor Relief.

I have some other older Ancestors and relatives in a similar condition, while some other relatives were better off financially.

Has anyone else who had relatives who lived past 65 years old know what they lived on, especially when it is unlikely that they saved much money for retirement.

Regards

Researching: Stirlingshire-Kay/Key, McDonald, Dun/Dunn,
Edmund, Millar, Scott. Perthshire- Kay, Mallish. Mull-McKinnon, Campbell.
Renfreshire- McDonald, McLaren, Kennedy, Boyd. Northern Ireland- Kennedy, Boyd, McKee
Sheila

Russell
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire

Post by Russell » Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:51 pm

Hi Sheila

Funnily enough, just as your post came up my wife and I were looking at one of my Fife relatives. She lived until she was 90. She was born in 1796 in a fishing community (Cellardyke)
After her husband died in 1862 Janet was not on her own as she had 7 sons and daughters to help out. Yet by 1866 she had to apply to the Parish Board for support and they offered 3/6 per week + her rent.
In 1869 the Board ordered her son to re-pay advances she had been given but this could not have happened and by 1873 she had been receiving support although no details given but again her house rent was withdrawn.
In 1876 she again applied and was given 2/6 per week + rent.
In 1885 her name was removed from the Roll although no reason was recorded but later in the same year she was re-admitted and given 2/6 per week.
When we looked at this roller coaster of support/no support we wondered if there was a correlation between her fisherman sons catches and the withdrawal of support. In lean years he would not be able to afford to support her with a wife and large family of his own to support.
One of my wife's relatives could get no support from one of his sons because they were already supporting his father-in-law !
Another son was in the army so the Board decided not to even approach him for a contribution.
They seemed to have a precarious existence largely dependent on the little that relatives could afford to give them.
Many of our ancestors lived with a son or daughter so you had three generations sharing a one or two roomed house. I suppose if you make a pot of soup or porridge, an extra mouth does not make much difference. Everyone just has a little less on their plate.
We live in a time of relative plenty and benefactors/voluntary organisations fill in the gaps in the system. Aren't we lucky :?:

Russell
Working on: Oman, Brock, Miller/Millar, in Caithness.
Roan/Rowan, Hastings, Sharp, Lapraik in Ayr & Kirkcudbrightshire.
Johnston, Reside, Lyle all over the place !
McGilvray(spelt 26 different ways)
Watson, Morton, Anderson, Tawse, in Kilrenny

emanday
Global Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 12:50 am
Location: Born in Glasgow: now in Bristol

Post by emanday » Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:48 pm

Hi Sheila,

My GG Grandfather died in Glasgow City Poorhouse in 1901, even though he had 7 living children.

From the Poor Relief record it is fairly obvious that they, with the exception of one daughter who contributed a couple of shillings, were in no real position to assist financially. Even his wife at 72 was still working as a cleaner in lieu of rent.

These were hard times. I initially found it shocking, knowing how close a family they were, that he had died where he did, but it was further research that made me realise just how hard it must have been for them.

I was born the same year the "Welfare State" started but just a little bit too early to benefit from it. At three months old I nearly died of pneumonia and it was only the generosity of relatives and neighbours contributing their rent money that allowed my parents to pay for the penicillin that saved my life. Had I taken ill just a month later their sacrifice would not have been necessary. In my case, the difference between life and certain death could have been down to a matter of weeks.

Our ancestors had it very hard.
[b]Mary[/b]
A cat leaves pawprints on your heart
McDonald or MacDonald (some couldn't make up their mind!), Bonner, Crichton, McKillop, Campbell, Cameron, Gitrig (+other spellings), Clark, Sloan, Stewart, McCutcheon, Ireland (the surname)

sheilajim
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: san clemente california

Post by sheilajim » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:23 am

Hi Mary & Russell,

Mary that is horrible what nearly happened to you, and in the 20th century! I agree that our ancestors really had it very hard. I was wondering what happened if their children were unable to look after them. Was there no safety net at all, except Poor Relief? Were there no kinds of private pensions from employers?

From my reading of Poor Houses, life there was pretty grim. They didn't go to any trouble to make life in those institutions pleasant, indeed they seem to have done just the opposite. I don't think that the reason for this was only because they had small budgets. I think that they thought that people who hadn't any money were just lazy or somehow immoral. Some people might have been lazy, but in those days( in the 19th century) there doesn't seem to have been many employee benefits and the hours they worked were very long.

What I was wondering was if this was a result of the Industrial Revolution when people left, or were forced off the land, to work for the industries of the day. People started moving around much more then, taking their children with them but leaving their parents.

Strangely enough, I do have a few cases where the adult children moved back in with their parents.
Sheila

Russell
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire

Post by Russell » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:54 am

Hi Sheila

Back then there were no employee benefits of any kind. Employees had no protection against an unfair employer. If you were sacked for good reason, or none, there was no Unfair Dismissal clause or Industrial Tribunal to go to. You were out.
Master craftsmen formed the Guilds to try to bring some fairness into things with varying degrees of success.
in the 1840's, in Paisley, when the millowners tried to reduce the wages of the weavers and they refused to budge, the mill owners brought in weavers from other villages whowould do the work cheaper, or they transported the raw material to the village and the weavers agent ensured that the completed material was up to standard or they just weren't paid.
Remember that only those with money and/or land had any vote in society and the worker had neither.
A major contributory factor in all the early deaths from TB was gross overcrowding of unsanitary houses and the landlord could be the same person as employed the worker !
Miners had to stay in the hovels provided by the mine owner and often had to buy their essentials from the store owned by that same mine owner paying the prices he decided.
Until the inception of Parish Councils the only funds the Kirk Sessions had for Poor Relief were monies from Birth and marriage Registration, fines from those hauled up before the Board, and any donations which the wealthy gentry condescended to make to the fund. There was not a lot to go round and able bodied men were exopected to find work. They were only given support when they were incapable of working. Women and children were better provided for and regardless of Poor House conditions, sometimes they were better than the situation which caused them to come in in the first place.

Russell
Working on: Oman, Brock, Miller/Millar, in Caithness.
Roan/Rowan, Hastings, Sharp, Lapraik in Ayr & Kirkcudbrightshire.
Johnston, Reside, Lyle all over the place !
McGilvray(spelt 26 different ways)
Watson, Morton, Anderson, Tawse, in Kilrenny

StewL
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:59 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Post by StewL » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:06 am

A bit of a long winded follow on from Russell :lol:

The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and the rest of the United Kingdom from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century.

For much of the period of the Poor Law, the dependent poor were classified in terms of three groups:
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills. Attempts to assist these people, and move them out of this category, varied over the centuries, but usually consisted of relief either in the form of work or money.
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', sometimes termed 'sturdy rogues', were deemed those who could work but had refused to. Such people were seen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as potential criminals, apt to do mischief when hired for the purpose. They were normally seen as people needing punishment, and as such were often whipped in the market place as an example to others, or sometimes sent to so-called 'House of Correction'. This group was also termed the idle poor.

Elizabethan Poor Law
The Poor Law Act 1601 also known as the Elizabethan Poor Law and Old Poor Law (after the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834) formalised earlier practices of poor relief. It created a collectivist national system, paid for by levying local rates (or property taxes). It made provision:
To board out (making a payment to families willing to accept them) those young children who were orphaned or whose parents could not maintain them, to provide materials to "set the poor on work"
To offer relief to people who were unable to work -- mainly those who were "lame, impotent, old, blind", and
"The putting out of children to be apprentices".
Relief for those too ill or old to work, the so called helpless poor, was in the form of a payment or items of food ('the parish loaf') or clothing. Some aged people might be accommodated in parish alms houses, though these were usually private charitable institutions. Meanwhile able-bodied beggars who had refused work were often placed in houses of correction. However, provision for the many able-bodied poor in the workhouse, which provided accommodation at the same time as work, was relatively unusual, and most workhouses developed later. Assistance given to the deserving poor that did not involve an institution like the workhouse, was known as 'outdoor relief'.
Scotland launched its own Poor Law system in 1579. As the Act of Union which united England and Scotland did not alter Scotland's legal system, this Poor Law system did not disappear after 1707. Reforms similar in intent to the English reforms of 1834 were made in 1845.

18th Century Workhouse
The eighteenth-century workhouse movement began at the end of the seventeenth century with the establishment of the Bristol Corporation of the Poor, founded by Act of Parliament in 1696. The corporation established a workhouse which combined housing and care of the poor with a house of correction for petty offenders. Following the example of Bristol some twelve further towns and cities established similar corporations in the next two decades. Because these corporations required a private Act, they were not suitable for smaller towns and individual parishes.
Starting with the parish of Olney, Buckinghamshire in 1714 several dozen small towns and individual parishes established their own institutions without any specific legal authorization. These were concentrated in the South Midlands and in the county of Essex. From the late 1710s the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge began to promote the idea of parochial workhouses. The Society published several pamphlets on the subject, and supported Sir Edward Knatchbull in his successful efforts to steer the Workhouse Test Act through parliament in 1723. The act gave legislative authority for the establishment of parochial workhouses, by both single parishes and as joint ventures between two or more parishes. More importantly, the Act helped to publicise the idea of establishing workhouses to a national audience. By 1776 some 1912 parish and corporation workhouses had been established in England and Wales, housing almost 100,000 paupers. Although many parishes and pamphlet writers expected to earn money from the labour of the poor in workhouses, the vast majority of people obliged to take up residence in workhouses were ill, elderly, or children whose labour proved largely unprofitable. The demands, needs and expectations of the poor also ensured that workhouses came to take on the character of general social policy institutions, combining the functions of creche, and night shelter, geriatric ward and orphanage.

In 1782, Thomas Gilbert finally succeeded in passing an act that established poor houses solely for the aged and infirm and introduced a system of outdoor relief for the able-bodied. This was the basis for the development of the Speenhamland system, which made financial provision for low-paid workers.

19th Century
The 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws was set up following the widespread destruction and machine breaking of the Swing Riots. The report was prepared by a commission of nine, including Nassau William Senior, and served by Edwin Chadwick as Secretary. The Royal Commission's primary concerns were with illegitimacy (or "bastardy"), reflecting the influence of Malthusians, and the fear that the practices of the Old Poor Law were undermining the position of the independent labourer.
After 1847 the Poor Law Commission was replaced with a Poor Law Board. This was because of the Andover workhouse scandal (In 1846, a Select Committee of the House of Commons investigated alleged abuses of paupers in the workhouse in Andover, Hampshire. The Master, an ex Sergeant-Major called M'Dougal, was known as a drunken bully who mistreated and starved his charges. Many paupers were so hungry they ate the peelings left for the pigs and even sucked the bones they were grinding up for fertiliser. Paupers were locked in the mortuary as a punishment and female paupers were subject to sexual abuse by M'Dougal and his son.) and the criticism of Henry Parker who was responsible for the Andover union as well as the tensions in Somerset House caused by Chadwicks failure to become a Poor Law Commissioner.

End of Poor Relief
The reforms of the Liberal Government 1906-14 (see Liberal reforms) made several provisions to provide social services without the stigma of the Poor Law, including Old age pensions and National Insurance, and from that period fewer people were covered by the system. Means tests were developed during the inter-war period, not as part of the Poor Law, but as part of the attempt to offer relief that was not affected by the stigma of pauperism.
One aspect of the Poor Law that continued to cause resentment was that the burden of poor relief was not shared equally by rich and poor areas but, rather, fell most heavily on those areas in which poverty was at its worst. This was a central issue in the Poplar Rates Rebellion led by George Lansbury and others in 1921.
Workhouses were officially abolished by the Local Government Act 1929, which from 1 April 1930 abolished the Unions and transferred their responsibilities to the county councils and county boroughs. Some however persisted into the 1940s. The remaining responsibility for the Poor Law was given to local authorities before final abolition in 1948.

Here Endeth the Lesson :shock: :D
Last edited by StewL on Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stewie

Searching for: Anderson, Balks, Barton, Courtney, Davidson, Downie, Dunlop, Edward, Flucker, Galloway, Graham, Guthrie, Higgins, Laurie, Mathieson, McLean, McLuckie, Miln, Nielson, Payne, Phillips, Porterfield, Stewart, Watson

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:55 am

As Stew notes the major reform of poor relief in Scotland was the Act of 1845.

A major difference in Scotland was that "able bodied" poor were not entitles to relief.

The other major difference in Scotland was the administration and organisation. Most parishes didn't have a poorhouse, but provided out-relief. Approximately 50, from memory, of those that did have a poorhouse shared it with surrounding parishes, - hence, for example the Cunningham Combination Poorhouse. (Is there a FAQ on this?, - haven't time to check.....)


On a related theme it shouldn't be ignored that many workers were members of "friendly societies" in the 1800s and into the early 1900, - up until the 1908 and 1911 acts relating to old age pensions and National Insurance" contributions; as well as the development of trades unions.

David

Russell
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Kilbarchan, Renfrewshire

Post by Russell » Wed Jul 04, 2007 9:20 am

Hi Stewie

My response was maybe long-winded but yours shows you are a hoarder :D

You still have your textbooks on Social Reform from your course.
perhaps you should make it a locked topic in 'Institutions'. Its a nice concise summary of what everyone neds to know to understand the times.

Russell
Working on: Oman, Brock, Miller/Millar, in Caithness.
Roan/Rowan, Hastings, Sharp, Lapraik in Ayr & Kirkcudbrightshire.
Johnston, Reside, Lyle all over the place !
McGilvray(spelt 26 different ways)
Watson, Morton, Anderson, Tawse, in Kilrenny

StewL
Posts: 1396
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:59 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Post by StewL » Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:16 am

Russell

Yes a bit of a hoarder :D :oops:

I did a couple of units on Social Policy and of course the "Elizabethan Poor Law" was a major feature. Ah Social Welfare, I wont start on the current trend as talking politics is verbotten :wink: For this article I did do a bit of cheating by copying and pasting of course :-

If someone in the AG or such wishes to put it in a place for reference, by all means do so.
Stewie

Searching for: Anderson, Balks, Barton, Courtney, Davidson, Downie, Dunlop, Edward, Flucker, Galloway, Graham, Guthrie, Higgins, Laurie, Mathieson, McLean, McLuckie, Miln, Nielson, Payne, Phillips, Porterfield, Stewart, Watson

joette
Global Moderator
Posts: 1974
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: Clydebank

Post by joette » Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:24 pm

They also took on work like Night-Watching,collecting/selling firewood,laying out the dead.Things that paid a little but didn't require a"hard days work".
Whenever people say "Hard work didn't kill anybody" I say read your history books & check the statistics because it did!
I know that most people's attitude to big families was "It's hard rearing them but when they are working life will be easier" Which it may have been but then when they too had families to support would not have been able to help then.
I know when my Mum's Aunt was widowed in the forties all the brothers contributed to help her out.I don't know how my Granny felt with six children to feed.They felt it was their duty.Their Father had did the same for his sister(who was actually his cousin).
Researching:SCOTT,Taylor,Young,VEITCH LINLEY,MIDLOTHIAN
WADDELL,ROSS,TORRANCE,GOVAN/DALMUIR/Clackmanannshire
CARR/LEITCH-Scotland,Ireland(County Donegal)
LINLEY/VEITCH-SASK.Canada
ALSO BROWN,MCKIMMIE,MCDOWALL,FRASER.
Greer/Grier,Jenkins/Jankins