This article is available in audio format, please click on the play icon below to listen. 

Elizabeth Wilson (1780-1853) was a tailor’s daughter, originally from Farnhill. In 1801 she married William Whitaker of Skyreholme, in the parish of Burnsall. He was 10 years her senior, and spent much of his working life with horses – as a horse-breaker or trainer, and as a groom – but also had to take up general labouring jobs to support nine children, born between 1802 and 1823 (One died as a child, aged eight). They rented a cottage on Barden Road, in Eastby.

By 1851 the couple were receiving poor relief, living with their widowed son, John (who had followed his father into working as a groom) and his three young children.

Daughter Margaret, a 45-year-old spinster working in the cotton mills, was also part of the household, as was another unmarried daughter, 40-year-old Judith, who was also receiving poor relief, probably because she had a one-year-old illegitimate son, Charles  (She also had an illegitimate son, Richard, aged 15, who worked in the mills).

Old Age and the Workhouse:

In the mid-19^th Century signs of old age were expected to manifest themselves from the age of about 50. So at the age of 69, Elizabeth would have been considered very elderly.

It is significant that both Elizabeth and her husband William were described as paupers, but under the terms of the New Poor Law system were lucky to avoid the workhouse.  

Victorian middle-class ideals of self-help, assumed that a blameless life of thrift, honesty, hard work, and family values would keep the working classes out of extreme poverty. A fundamental principle underlying the New Poor Law was the distinction made between the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor. The widespread belief underpinning  the ‘Workhouse Test’, on which the New Poor Law of 1834 was based, was that the growing burden of providing poor relief was due mainly to  large numbers of ‘undeserving, grasping, fraudulent and idle’ able-bodied men. To deter them, claimants for poor relief were to be offered the workhouse or nothing.  There was a complete failure to understand the realities of poverty in the early 19^th Century.

The popular history of the New Poor Law is dominated by the dreadful spectre of the workhouse, but in reality the Poor Law Commissioners very quickly realised the flaws in the system, as they soon discovered the majority of paupers were in fact women (mostly single or widowed), the elderly, and infirm. A long series of ‘interim orders’ (minor tweaks and amendments) were issued over several decades in a vain attempt to cope with the unexpected number of ‘deserving’ poor. The system was in a constant state of change and adaptation as the Workhouse Test proved unsuitable and ineffective.

Poor Relief outside the workhouse: 

Faced with the lack of enough space in the workhouses, local Boards of Guardians often ignored the directives of the Poor Law inspectors from London, and were making their own decisions on whether to apply the workhouse test to everyone. Over the rest of the 19^th Century, the government issued many special orders, circulars and amendments, each expanding the categories of paupers who could receive outdoor relief. Meanwhile, the elderly poor did their best to avoid the workhouse by combining part-time work, taking on lodgers, seeking help from local charities, enlisting the support of relatives (Poor Law Guardians believed it was a son’s duty to look after his elderly parents), and/or claiming only small amounts of outdoor relief in times of crisis. If they were lucky, they might also have some small savings with a sick club or friendly society to draw upon. Whether an elderly person was sent to the workhouse or was allowed to receive outdoor payments depended very much on where they lived, and the attitudes of the local Poor Law Board, and how many paupers the local workhouse could accommodate. Many unions would only offer out-door relief if the elderly person was of ‘good character’, or had relatives to support them.

couples should not be separated led to a significant increase in outdoor relief as many workhouses could not provide suitable married quarters. The result was a huge range in the levels of local poor relief offered, and to whom, eventually resulting in there being many more outdoor paupers than workhouse inmates.^[1] Despite all the efforts of central government to impose the Workhouse Test, it failed to put a stop to outdoor relief. Indeed, there were always more paupers on outdoor relief than inside the workhouses. Between 1834 and 1880 an average of 80% to 90% of paupers were living outside the workhouse.

Family Support:

Elizabeth and her husband William were receiving outdoor relief, and living at home with the support of their grown-up children. The couple were lucky that by the 1850s the system of welfare under the New Poor Law of 1834 had been sufficiently amended and adapted so that if the local Board of Guardians were sympathetic enough, the workhouse was no longer the only option for them.

Outdoor relief payments were never intended to provide even minimal subsistence levels, but had to be supplemented by other means if the elderly pauper was to survive. By the 1850s the payments were usually between 1s to 3s per week, issued as a weekly ‘pension’, and far below the wages of even the most poorly paid labourer. In return for being allowed to stay out of the workhouse, Elizabeth and William would also  have been expected to live with their married son, who would have been obliged to financially support them to some extent. Studies of census material clearly show that those who lived in extended families were at half the risk of becoming paupers, and certainly less likely to enter the workhouse in old age than those who had lived alone, had no offspring, or were servants and lodgers.

Elizabeth’s death:

The registrar was informed of Elizabeth’s death by her 19-year-old grandson, Isaac Whitaker, who had been present at her deathbed on 28^th June 1853. Her widowed husband, William, lived for another ten years, continuing to receive poor relief, while in the care of his two unmarried daughters. He would therefore have been aware of the growing antagonism during the 1860s towards the ‘burden’ of poor rates on society.

Crusade Against Out-Relief:

There was a movement during the late 1860s and 1870s to enforce the rules more strictly. Known as the ‘Crusade Against Out-relief’, Guardians were to rigidly apply the workhouse test as intended by the original 1834 Act. The elderly were frequent targets of those who disapproved of the rising costs of welfare. Before granting outdoor relief to the elderly, Local Boards were urged to consider moral character, the availability of relatives, and access to alternatives such as charitable organisations. Again, each local Board of Guardians interpreted the advice differently – some being extremely strict and judgemental, while others were much more sympathetic to the plight of elderly applicants.

By the 1890s however, it was becoming widely recognised that the elderly required more help from the state. 22% of all paupers were aged over 65. This eventually led to the adoption of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1908.

After Elizabeth’s death, William continued to live with his adult  children, but his daughter-in-law, Esther, died in 1857, and his son John in 1860, leaving William in a very vulnerable position. But his unmarried daughters Margaret (54) and Judith (51) stayed with him, somehow managing to  provide enough support to keep their aged father out of the workhouse, with the help of Judith’s son, Richard, now 22 and working as a stone cutter.

William died aged 96, also buried in an un-marked pauper’s grave – it is not recorded if he was buried with his late wife.

[1] Elizabeth Hurren – “Politics and Poor Relief in Late-Victorian England, 1870-1900:Protesting  about Pauperism and Poverty” (2007);
K.D.M. Snell – “Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales, 1700-1950” (2006. pp. 210-212)

Jane Lunnon, Embsay-with-Eastby Historical Research Group
The above post is an extract from a much longer article  on Elizabeth Whitaker and the Poor Law, that can be found in our latest publication: “Silent Neighbours”, available to purchase from the Paper Shop.