̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Poor Law

Historian uncovers new evidence of 18th century London's 'Child Support Agency'

sjr81 — Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:05:44 +0000

Dr Samantha Williams’ Unmarried Motherhood in the Metropolis: 1700-1850 reveals, using London’s few surviving ‘bastardy books’, how the parishes of Lambeth, Southwark and Chelsea chased the fathers of illegitimate babies – and the lengths some errant fathers went to in order to escape not only their moral and financial obligations, but the clutches of parish constables and the feared houses of correction.

Read the full Shorthand story

How 18th and 19th century London supported its unmarried mothers and illegitimate children – essentially establishing an earlier version of today’s Child Support Agency – is the subject of newly-published research by a Cambridge historian.

Workhouse Women in St. Giles's Church by Charles Holroyd (1880-84). ©Trustees of the British Museum

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Cutting welfare to protect the economy ignores lessons of history, researchers claim

tdk25 — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 06:00:14 +0000

Cutting welfare and social care budgets during times of economic hardship is an “historically obsolete” strategy that ignores the very roots of British prosperity, a group of Cambridge academics have warned.

Writing in the leading medical journal, ̽��ֱ��Lancet, a team of researchers argue that squeezing health and welfare spending in order to reduce taxes, and on the basis that these are luxuries that can only be afforded when times are good, overlooks a critical lesson of British history – namely that they are central to the nation’s economic success.

̽��ֱ��authors are all part of a group based at St John’s College, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, which is studying the causes of health inequalities and looking at how research in this area can be used to inform policy interventions.

Drawing on recent research, they argue that the concept of a British welfare state, widely thought to have begun after the Second World War, actually dates back to a “precocious welfare system” forged during the reign of Elizabeth I, which was fundamental to England’s emergence as “the most dynamic economy in the world”.

While the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that there will be no further welfare savings during the present Parliament beyond those already announced, the paper is directly critical of the continuation of those existing policies, which have reduced welfare spending overall in the name of economic austerity.

Referring to the statement made by the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, that “you can only have a strong NHS if you have a strong economy”, the authors argue: “ ̽��ֱ��narrow view that spending on the National Health Service and social care is largely a burden on the economy is blind to the large national return to prosperity that comes from all citizens benefiting from a true sense of social security.”

They continue: “There are signs that Theresa May subscribes to the same historically obsolete view. Despite her inaugural statement as Prime Minister, her Chancellor’s autumn statement signals continuing austerity with further cuts inflicted on the poor and their children, the vulnerable, and infirm older people.”

By contrast, the paper argues that a universalist approach of progressively-funded health and welfare spending is an integral part of economic growth, and something that modern states cannot afford to do without. That conclusion is echoed in a new educational film, developed from work by Simon Szreter, Professor of History & Public Policy at Cambridge and a co-author of the Lancet piece.

“We are arguing from history that there needs to be an end to this idea of setting economic growth in opposition to the goal of welfare provision,” Professor Szreter said. “A healthy society needs both, and the suggestion of history is that they seem to feed each other.”

Perhaps surprisingly, the paper traces that feedback loop to the Tudor era, and specifically the Elizabethan Poor Laws in 1598 and 1601. These enshrined in law an absolute “right of relief” for every subject of the Crown, funding the policy with a community tax and applying both through the local Parish.

̽��ֱ��authors say that this not only represented the world’s first social security system, but also made the elderly less reliant on their children for support, increased labour mobility, enabled urban growth and eased Britain’s transition to an industrial economy. ̽��ֱ��system also maintained a level of demand by supporting the purchasing power of the poor when food prices rose.

Rather than stifling Britain’s economy, the paper argues that the system was therefore essential to helping the country to become the most urbanized society in the world, and the world’s leading economy, between 1600 and 1800. Although the population more than doubled during this time, key indicators of prosperity - such as life expectancy - actually improved.

“Overall, it facilitated the most sustained period of rising economic prosperity in the nation’s history,” the authors observe.

̽��ֱ��authors go on to link the economic growth that the nation experienced under the welfare state after 1945 with similar universalist principles of progressively-funded health and welfare provision, arguing that these stimulated a dynamic period of per capita economic growth, and cut the rich-poor divide to an all-time low during the 1970s.

Conversely, they argue that the economy has stagnated when such principles have been abandoned. ̽��ֱ��Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 overhauled the earlier Elizabethan Laws in an effort to prevent abuses of the system that were felt to be draining the pockets of honest taxpayers. Infamously, this involved providing relief through workhouses in which the appalling conditions, seared into social consciousness by authors like Charles Dickens, were so bad that only the truly destitute sought their help.

̽��ֱ��study suggests that there is no evidence that this approach, which came close to criminalising the poor, actually brought about much economic benefit. In fact, British growth rates gradually fell behind the country’s rivals’ after 1870 - and only recovered after 1950, in the postwar decades of the revived, universalist welfare state.

̽��ֱ��authors also point out that to cut welfare budgets because this will relieve taxation on “hard-working families” implies that those who need welfare are somehow unproductive. Just as the Victorian 1834 measures attempted to address a perceived problem with the “idle poor”, current strategies often dub benefits claimants, directly or indirectly, as “scroungers”.

“ ̽��ֱ��interests of the poor and the wealthy are not mutually opposed in a zero-sum game,” the authors conclude. “Investment in policies that develop human and social capital will underpin economic opportunities and security for the whole population.”

̽��ֱ��paper, Health and welfare as a burden on the state? ̽��ֱ��dangers of forgetting history is published in ̽��ֱ��Lancet.

Amid ongoing welfare cuts, researchers argue that investment in health and social care have been integral to British economic success since 1600.

There needs to be an end to this idea of setting economic growth in opposition to the goal of welfare provision. ̽��ֱ��suggestion of history is that they seem to feed each other.

Simon Szreter

Peter Higginbotham via Wikimedia Commons

Dinner time in St Pancras Workhouse, London, 1911. Workhouses, established under the Poor Law Amendment Act, were part of a Victorian programme that cut universal welfare support and stigmatised many poor people as “unproductive”.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Care in the community

lw355 — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:30:07 +0000

When institutionalised care for the mentally disabled was phased out under Margaret Thatcher in 1983, and the responsibility for care shifted principally to family members, the policy was considered to be one of the biggest political changes in the history of mental healthcare. But the approach to care was really coming full circle.

Mental illness and disability were family problems for English people living between 1660 and 1800. While mental illness was a subject of morbid fascination to the English public, and queues formed to see incarcerated women, the reality was more mundane. Most women and men who were afflicted by mental illness were not institutionalised, as this was the period before the extensive building of asylums. Instead, they were housed at home, and cared for by other family members.

Now a new study by Cambridge historian Dr Elizabeth Foyster will reveal the impact on families of caring for mentally ill and disabled relatives.

Much has been written about the insane themselves but few studies have considered mental illness from the perspective of the carers. ̽��ֱ��lifetime burden of caring for those individuals whose mental development did not progress beyond childhood, and who contemporaries labelled as ‘idiots’, ‘naturals’ or ‘fools’, has been little explored by historians. Foyster’s research, which has been funded by the Leverhulme Trust, will unpick the emotional and economic consequences for families at a time when the Poor Law bound them to look after their mentally ill and disabled family members.

By asking key questions about the impact of ‘care in the community’ in the 18th century, Foyster hopes that her research will bridge social and medical history. Specifically, she aims to provide an historical perspective to contemporary debates such as how resources can be stretched to provide for children with learning difficulties and an ageing population.

“ ̽��ֱ��stresses and strains of family life were exacerbated by high infant mortality and low life expectancy, and many individuals were pushed towards mental breakdown,” she explained. “Moreover, inherited conditions, senility and what today would be described as ‘special needs’ could put great emotional demands on family members who had primary responsibility for their sick or disabled relatives.”

̽��ֱ��research will shed light upon how caring for the mentally ill and disabled raised difficult issues for families about the limits of intergenerational responsibility, and whether family ties were weakened or strengthened by the experience. ̽��ֱ��questions of how far shame was attached to having insanity or idiocy within a family, and at what point families began to seek outside help, will also be addressed.

“ ̽��ֱ��family must have seemed an inescapable feature of daily life between 1660 and 1800,” said Foyster. “Although there were those who were abandoned and rejected, for the majority, mental disability was accommodated within the family unit. I aim to get to the heart of what this really meant for people’s lives.”

For more information, please contact Louise Walsh (louise.walsh@admin.cam.ac.uk) at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Office of External Affairs and Communications.

Historians have long recognised that the family were the chief carers of the mentally ill. A new study will investigate the emotional and economic consequences of what care in the community meant to 18th-century families.

Although there were those who were abandoned and rejected, for the majority, mental disability was accommodated within the family unit.

Dr Elizabeth Foyster

Fitzwilliam Museum

'Madness', James McArdell, after Robert Edge Pine 1760

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes