Paupery

[paul_niab]

Hello all,

I wonder if anyone can offer any enlightenment on the subject of paupery.

My interest is in relation to the entry in the 1861 census for my 3xgreat-grandmother, Hannah Thompson, of Brompton by Northallerton. She was by this time widowed. She married Henry Thompson in 1818, he had been a linen weaver and he died in 1845
In the entry she is  noted as a pauper, which has left me feeling
intrigued and more than slightly ignorant.
The oldest dictionary I have to hand (dated 1911) defines a pauper as "a
very poor or destitute person: one supported by charity or by some public
provision". The first part of that definition fits in fairly well with what
I would have imagined it ought to mean.
Does anyone know if a person had to meet certain criteria at the time of the
1861 (or any other) census to be defined as a pauper, and was it much the
same as the above?
What's curious is that her son, William, is entered at the same address and
he had an income as a linen weaver . The census makes it sound as though he wasn't providing for her.
So although probably poor, were weavers wages so low that she would have
been destitute to the point of needing charity? If so, what charitable
organisations were offering relief to paupers in the village? It sounds as
though she was one stop away from the workhouse!
I suppose these days such a household would be seen simply as an older
relative moving in with their children, I don't think you'd call them a
pauper.. maybe a useful source of babysitting.
Does anyone with access to the 1861 census know how many villagers, and what proportion they were, were recorded as paupers?

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated, best regards, Paul

[Hackstaple]

In the late 18th C it is said that 20% of the population were paupers. That meant having no real assets or any income of their own. In this case the son, living with his mother, was probably providing for her but the definition was important to him. If she needed hospitalization or burial it would be the Poor Law district that would bear that cost - not him. She would also be entitled to an issue of clothing each year, an amount defined by law.

[paul_niab]

Hi,

Many thanks for your reply. I am only just starting to learn about Poor Law and its importance, likewise for workhouses.

 So do you mean that her status as a pauper would have been "official", ie she would have had to apply for it, and undergone some sort of means testing? Would the local clergy have been those reponsible for overseeing it, or was it government organised?

In my ignorance I was oblivious to the fact that was some social welfare provision at the time, or that there was a great need for it. I think I had tended to think that there was plenty of work around for anyone that wanted it, and that extended families would simply have looked after those not able to support themselves.
Family history research is certainly more than a simple names and dates exercise, to understand and appreciate what you discover you do have to be prepared for an education too!

regards, Paul

[Hackstaple]

In 1861 [and after 1834] the principle responsibility for provision for the poor rested with the Poor Law Commissioner for a district. Previously the established Church had the Right of Tithe and so had the responsibility for the poor. Many agricultural labourers were itinerant - they tramped looking for work [hence our word Tramp]. In winter they may have no means of existing without the workhouse [under the church those were Alms houses].
Despite all of that a huge number of charities existed in Victorian and Edwardian times, may intent on rescuing and educating the young. It is worth reading about the Ragged Schools for instance and about William Booth's Salvation Army. The Victorian era was not all played out at Court or at the Crystal Palace.
Forgive my sombre reply but the plight of the poor was and is a  serious affair. Having once been quite poor, I know.

[Catswhiskers]

You have my sympathy hackstaple
I've been poor myself. Not much fun is it?