"Poor relief" 18th century

[fisherj]

Can someone please advise me...

When the parish made payments to the poor, was it always to the head of the household?

And in cases where the payments were made to women, would that have only been when they were widows or single or for whatever reason their husbands were not living with them?

Or if husband and wife were not living together in the parish, and both were deemed in need of poor relief, would the church have paid both parties separately or would there be an expectation that they would move back together?

Many thanks

[jim1]

Parish Relief was paid to whoever was applying.
The applicant would have to present themselves + children before the board for assessment.
A woman would have to produce some evidence of desertion or inability of the husband
to provide for them.
Apart from what you've mentioned it could also be a wife of a serving soldier not sending money back to his wife or a husband not earning enough to sustain his family where Parish Relief was used to make
up the difference.
If both were applying for Relief separately it would be reduced pro rata.
Although there was a Law regarding the eligibility of Poor Relief it was left to the Board to
decide how that was interpreted & so there may be variations between Parishes.

[Gadget]

In my student days, I did a whole course on the Poor Law from Elizabethan times to the reforms of the 1900s  but I can't remember very many details now.

Jim has answered your specific question but I though that this gives a fairly good summary of the history of the Poor Law:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/english-poor-laws/

Gadget

[Bookbox]

Just to add that in the 18th century there were no boards before whom applicants had to appear – poor law relief was dispensed by parish overseers, at their discretion, and there was little standardisation in the way it operated. This is one of the reasons why the Poor Law Amendment Act was introduced in 1834.

It might be easier to help you if you provided specific details and date(s) of the case(s) involved?

[fisherj]

Thanks for all your advice and for forwarding the link re English Poor Laws.

As for the reason for my post Bookbox...see chronology below...sorry if this is too much information...

And many thanks to Family Search for making so many Cornish records available on line...

02 Aug 1775  William ROWE m Elizabeth HENNA in Gorran, Cornwall. She was bapt in 1754 in Falmouth.  He in 1756 in St Clement, Cornwall. 
31 Dec 1775  Ann, their daughter was baptised in St Kew, Cornwall
08 Oct  1778  Mary, their daughter was baptised in St Marys Truro.
31 Oct  1778   Truro parish examination of William ROWE:  setting out WR's history including his marrying Elizabeth HENNAH, the various moves in his life, that he was a husbandman and concluding that although for the past 3 years he had lived in Truro and worked as a Day Labourer, he "hath done no Act to gain any settlement since he served in St Kew".
02 Feb  1779  Truro removal order to St Kew naming Elizabeth as the wife of William ROWE, husbandman and their 2 children, Ann and Mary.  Not including William in the removal order.
?? Apr  1779  St Kew parish payment for carrying Elizabeth ROWE to Truro (6/-)
Apr - July 1779  various payment by St Kew parish to Elizabeth ROWE.
11 Feb  1781  William son of Willam ROWE and Elizabeth was bapt in Truro St Mary
10 Nov 1781  Truro removal order Elizabeth, the wife of William ROWE and their children Ann, Mary and William to St Kew.  Again the order does not include William ROWE, Elizabeth's husband.
??  Jan 1782  St Kew payments to Elizabeth for furniture etc totalling £1/15/4d.
1783, 1784 and 1785 Several payments from St Kew to Elizabeth ROWE sometimes for her children.
25 Jul 1785  Amos, son of William ROWE and Elizabeth was bapt St Kew.
22 Dec 1793  James the base son of Elizabeth ROWE a married woman was bapt in St Kew.  One month's maintenance of her was paid by William JENKINS.

The St Kew parish payment records are available up to 1812 and they show numerous payments to Elizabeth ROWE and others to a William ROWE (he up to 1806). 

I had initially thought these were the couple that I had been researching but living apart.  Then I found there were 2 William ROWEs in St Kew parish at the same time (that is if Elizabeth ROWE's husband was living there at all!  The other William ROWE was married to Joan BISHOP.

I have not been able to find a suitable burial for "my" William ROWE though there is a William ROWE who was buried in St Kew in 1806 and the parish paid for his funeral.

Again - apologies for so much information but any thoughts - as ever - would be appreciated.

Many thanks

[Bookbox]

I think there are several possibilities, and it’s really hard to read the situation.

As William isn’t mentioned along with Elizabeth in the St Kew poor law records, he probably wasn’t with her at the times when she was seeking relief, otherwise it would have been paid to him and not to her.

He might have been working away from home legitimately and was unable to provide regular support at those times. Or he may have been seriously ill and unable to work. Or he may have deliberately gone AWOL, leaving her and the children totally unsupported. If the parish thought he had deserted her, they would be anxious to find him in order to defray their costs. Deserting a wife/family and leaving them chargeable to the parish was a criminal offence, so if he was guilty he’s unlikely to have re-appeared in the same area by choice.

While it looks like they were together in 1780, with a child baptised in early 1781, there’s a chance that this child was someone else’s (like the one baptised in 1793). Elizabeth may have had the child baptised as William’s for fear of poor relief payments being withdrawn if she was known to be cohabiting with another man. Just a thought.

I would try looking for other supporting records. A long shot, but are there any surviving quarter-sessions that might show whether William was apprehended and called to account? Or any other parish records, such as overseers books, that might add more information?

Have you asked Kresen Kernow if they have name-indexed their poor law records (as some county record offices have)? Or if they have anything else that might help?

[fisherj]

Bookbox - that's really helpful.

I had no idea that it was a criminal offence to leave your wife to the parish to maintain.  The parish payments to Elizabeth were every month.  She is included in a list of weekly payees in the book, as well as for specific items.

It does seem likely that between the Truro examination of William ROWE in Oct 1778 and the Truro removal order on Elizabeth and the children in Feb 1779, William left the family.  And she went to St Kew without him.  The first St Kew parish payments were Feb 1779 including charges for carrying Elizabeth from Truro.

It is not surprising that she returned to Truro parish until the second removal order in Nov 1781 given that her family (Henna) were from Falmouth (adjoining parish). 

Her husband, William ROWE only had settlement in St Kew because he had worked there for 5 years as a covenant servant to Christopher HAMBLY who was his maternal uncle.  Christopher HAMBLY was also a church warden and overseer of St Kew parish!  therefore agreeing payments to Elizabeth ROWE, his nephew's wife and children!

I have now ruled out the William ROWE listed in St Kew's payment book as being Elizabeth's husband.  It is now clear to me that 2 of the payments to William ROWE are definitely related to life events of the William ROWE that married Joan BISHOP.  And he is included in the weekly pay list too. 

I have been unable to establish any family tie between the 2 William ROWEs.

So thanks again for helping me understand the wider context and the clues that lie in the account books.

It is really unusual in my family research to find so much detail about the lives of poorer ancestors who lived almost 250 years ago.  I am grateful for that.

Much appreciated.




 

[Bookbox]

You’re welcome. I’m glad it seems to make sense. When I replied above, I hadn’t appreciated that the payments to Elizabeth were continuous and weekly, rather than occasional on the dates you listed. In view of that, I would say he had almost certainly left her. The lack of any other burial for a William Rowe would tend to support that too.

[fisherj]

Thanks again Bookbox.  Now the (possibly fruitless) search is on.

I found info on line about one William ROWE who is not the one I am looking for.  He ended up  being deported and was later murdered by "aboriginees" according to reports!  So anything is possible!!