SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



and timidity had quite as much influence on the justices' treatment of the 

 poor as compassion had. 



Our three authorities agree in saying that the poor were well and even 

 kindly treated. Out-relief was given freely, especially in small parishes. 

 Relief varied from one to seven shillings a week, and was theoretically 

 graduated according to the recipient's power of earning his own living. As 

 usual, the deserving poor were crowded out by the idle and worthless, there 

 was no labour test, and drunkenness and immorality were the marks of the 

 pauperized class. Some of the towns and more populous parishes found it 

 advisable to have workhouses. 



Darlington adopted the statute of 22 George III, and a visitor and two 

 guardians of the poor were appointed annually. They provided food and 

 clothing and appointed a salaried master and matron for the workhouse. The 

 visitor and guardians held weekly meetings to discuss the matters brought 

 before them by the master or governor as he was called, and to grant out-door 

 relief. There was a parish doctor for the sick poor, and regulations as to the 

 kind of food, but not as to the clothing of the inmates. The able-bodied 

 inmates of the workhouse were employed in the spinning and weaving mills 

 of the town, but their earnings were credited to the township. 



At the beginning of the nineteenth century Stockton adopted something 

 akin to what is now known as the Elberfeld system, and a committee of the 

 more respectable inhabitants investigated the actual circumstances of appli- 

 cants for relief, and outside assistance was only given in deserving cases. The 

 workhouse inmates varied from twenty-five to thirty in 18 10. For each the 

 master was allowed 4J. The 200 out-door paupers seldom got more than is. 

 a week. The total expense was ^1,000 a year, towards which the labour of 

 the able-bodied paupers seldom contributed ^10 a year. 



A few of the larger centres followed the example of these towns in 

 attempting to grapple with the problem, but generally the parishes took the 

 line of least resistance. Sunderland gave out-door relief on a large scale, but 

 published a list of the recipients. Framwellgate parish in Durham appointed 

 visitors to investigate the conduct of outside paupers. Gateshead tried to 

 make the paupers contribute something towards their food. However, these 

 were exceptions. At Stanhope the upkeep of the workhouse was let by 

 contract, and as usual the state of affairs was very bad. The poor of Crossgate 

 parish at Durham were contracted for at the rate of 2^. 'zd. a week each. In 

 general parishes considered workhouses expensive, and several followed the 

 example of those in Durham in giving outdoor relief freely, or else, like the 

 parish of Brandon (near Brancepeth) on the eve of the new system, they 

 boarded out their poor in the neighbouring workhouse, in this case at 2j. bd. 

 a week. The conditions of life in these workhouses and the food supplied 

 were too often equally bad. The regulations as to diet were a farce, and when 

 wheat became dear during the great war it simply disappeared from the 

 paupers' diet. 



All the workmen were not thriftless, and in most towns and villages 

 box clubs were to be found. The members paid a small sum, seldom more 

 than id. weekly, and payments analogous to those by the modern friendly 

 societies were made on the death, birth, or marriage of members of the con- 

 tributor's family, or the sickness of himself, or sometimes when he was unable 



245 



