Category: Board Of Supervision

Ten years to build a poorhouse

18/8/2017

In 1855, Arbroath Parochial Board was considering building a poorhouse:

19th July 1855
Arbroath. A letter of Messrs Lowson McDonald & Black dated 12th July, with copy minutes of the Parochial Board resolving to erect a Poorhouse, and plans for the Building, were submitted. The Committee approve the resolution to erect a Poorhouse, but delay consideration of the site and plans.

The Board of Supervision, a national organisation based in Edinburgh, was responsible for overseeing implementation of the Poor Law Act of 1845. One of its statutory duties was to consider and approve plans for poorhouses. The Board evidently suggested some alterations to the plans:

24th October 1855
Arbroath. A letter of Messrs Louson, Macdonald and Black, dated 19th October, with Plans of Poorhouse, altered as suggested, and Certificates by Architect and Medical Officer as to fitness of proposed site for Poorhouse, were submitted. The Board approved the site proposed, and continued consideration of the plans.

Eight days later, the Board met again, and signed off on the plans:

1st November 1855
Arbroath. The letters which were before the Board at last meeting, were again submitted with further letter of Messrs Henderson & Son of 29th October, and amended plans of proposed Poorhouse. The Board approved and signed the plans.

The subject then seems to be dropped, for the Board of Supervision minutes do not seem to mention Arbroath's proposed poorhouse for quite some time.

More than eight years later, though, Alexander Brown and six fellow Arbroath ratepayers write to the Board of Supervision with a complaint that seems a familiar one 150 years later:

10th December 1863
Arbroath - The Board took into consideration a letter from Alexander Brown and six other ratepayers of the Parish of Arbroath complaining of the management of the Parochial Lodging House for paupers - enquiring whether they are legally bound to pay Poor-rates to "uphold drunken paupers" in that house and stating that one of the paupers lodging there had been "two or three times convicted at the Police Court within the last six months for drunkenness".

The "Administrative Committee" of the Parochial Board admits the truth of the allegation regarding the pauper referred to, but states truly that the Parochial Board has no power to prevent the free ingress and egress of Paupers residing in the lodging house and asserts its willingness to assist by all legitimate means in lessening or preventing the waste of the means of the Poor.

The Board would suggest for the consideration of the Parochial Board whether one of the most efficient of the legitimate means which they express their willingness to adopt would not be substitute for the present Lodging House that Statutory Poorhouse which in May 1855, the Parochial Board resolved to erect - of which the Plans were approved by the Board of Supervision in November of that year and which the Parochial Board is still under a legal obligation to erect, altho' the Board of Supervision have hitherto abstained from taking measures to enforce that obligation.

This rebuke from the Board of Supervision seems to have prompted the Parochial Board finally to push on with their plans to build a poorhouse, this time as a Combination Poorhouse in conjunction with St Vigeans parish:

8th September 1864
Arbroath Combination Poorhouse - Leters from Messrs J & W McDonald dated 31st August and 5th September with relative sketch of proposed site for poorhouse and certificates by architect and medical officer, were submitted and continued.

A week later, after receiving further correspondence from the builders, together with a map of the site, the Board approved of the site:

15th September 1864
Arbroath Combination Poorhouse - The documents which were before the Board at last meeting were again submitted with further letter from Messrs J & W Macdonald dated 8th September and relative Ordnance Survey map for the parish of St Vigeans with proposed site for the poorhouse marked thereon. The Board approved the site.

Even that was not the end of the matter. It was another five months before the plans were finally approved by the Board, nearly ten years after the initial plans were submitted by the Parochial Board:

9th February 1865
Arbroath Poorhouse Combination - Two letters from Messrs J & W Macdonald dated 6th February, with plans of proposed poorhouse was [sic] submitted. The Board approved and signed the plans.

Shortly thereafter, the Arbroath Combination Poorhouse finally opened, some ten years after the plans were first submitted.

Sources:

Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/6 p. 95. 19 July 1855
Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/6 p. 123. 24 October 1855
Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/6 p. 125. 1 November 1855

Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/11 p. 53. 10 December 1863
Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/11 p. 155. 8 September 1864
Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, Minute Books. National Records of Scotland, HH23/11 p. 208. 9 February 1865

0 Comments

Meals fit for a pauper

21/2/2017

0 Comments

This week we've been looking at a wide range of poor law records in preparation for the launch of a new project (coming soon: watch this space). The records of the Board of Supervision - which among other things was responsible for oversight of the operation of the poor relief system in Scotland following the Poor Law Act of 1845 - make for fascinating reading. There are obvious parallels with modern welfare systems, and the tensions inherent in them.

The Board's Sixth Annual Report, published in 1851, includes a report on the Easter Ross Combination Poorhouse, which had been opened the previous year. Written in a dry, slightly bureaucratic style, it describes the progress of what was the first poorhouse in the Highlands:

The Easter Ross poorhouse was erected by nine contiguous parishes. The house was opened on the 1st of October 1850, and the first pauper was admitted on the 11th of that month. I visited the house on Monday and Tuesday, the 4th and 5th of August, and communicated with the inspectors of Tain, Tarbat, Fearn, Logie Easter, Kilmuir Easter, and Rosskeen. Since 11th October 1850 to 5th August, forty-eight paupers had been admitted to the poorhouse, some of them having in the course of that time, left the house, of their own accord, and been again admitted. Five of the forty-eight paupers died at the ages of 70, 50, 71, 20 and 72 years. The immediate causes of the deaths of four were bronchitis, hydrothorax, dysentery, chorea, or St Vitus’s dance. In the fifth case, the cause of death was not entered in the record, the pauper having only very recently died. Three of the forty-eight paupers had been removed elsewhere – one of them to a lunatic asylum – four had left the house of their own accord, and had not applied for re-admission: thus at the date of my visit, there were only thirty-six paupers in the house, leaving accommodation vacant for upwards of 120. The appearance of the inmates was good, and the cleanliness maintained throughout the establishment unexceptionable. The governor appears to be well suited for the office, and keeps all his books with great neatness and regularity. The objectionable points of the management are:

That there is no porter – and as the governor cannot always be at the gate, which is allowed to remain unlocked, the inmates may, if they please, wander from the poorhouse without leave, which indeed has sometimes happened;
That too much liberty seems to be given to the inmates to leave the poorhouse – as, however, the inmates are for the most part either very aged or bed-ridden, there does not seem to have been any abuse of the power, which the members of the committee have taken, of granting leave of absence to paupers wishing to visit their relatives for a limited period. It is, however, to be feared that such a general power of granting leave of absence, if acted upon to any extent, would lessen much the wholesome feeling of restraint, one of the moral benefits derivable from a poorhouse;
That there is not such a book for the observations of the visiting committee, as is prescribed by Rule XIV of the General Poorhouse Rules; and
That the drains for carrying off the foul water, cause, from their open state, a stench along the highway, amounting to a public nuisance.

The complaint that inmates are often free to come and go as they please suggests that the reporter, Mr Peterkin, was of the view that paupers should be kept out of sight. Another obvious concern - a common theme today for welfare systems - is the cost. Peterkin continues:

During the first two quarters of the operation of the poorhouse, the parochial board of Rosskeen issued sixty orders for admission to paupers on the roll; of that number, only ten availed themselves of the order – all the others refused to enter the house, and were consequently struck off the roll. Seven of them were, however, subsequently admitted to outdoor relief, but four at smaller allowances than they formerly had. All the others, forty-three, have supported themselves since without parochial assistance. It appears, too, that adding the out-door allowances, which (if there had been no poorhouse), would have been payable to the paupers who took advantage of the orders of admission, to the allowances of the paupers who have supported themselves without parochial relief, for two quarters and a half, a sum would be given equal to £59 19s. whereas, the exxpense of the paupers in the poorhouse, for maintenance and general expenses for three quarters, amounted to only £58 8s 1 1/4d. Thus Rosskeen has afforded relief to their paupers, under a poorhouse system, for three quarters of a year, for a less sum than that which would have been required to give outdoor relief for two quarters and a half, supposing no poorhouse had existed.

In Kilmuir, during the first two quarters, poorhouse admission orders were given to twenty-nine paupers. Ten availed themselves of these orders, the others refused to enter the house, and were, with four exceptions, struck off the roll, and supported themselves without parochial relief. The out-door allowances, for two quarters and a half, to the paupers who entered the poorhouse, and those who refused to do so and were not subsequently relieved, would have amounted to £30 7s, and the expense of maintaining the paupers in the poorhouse for the same period, and the other charges payable by Kilmuir on account of the poorhouse, amounted to £31 4s 2d.

This also shows that refusal of a place in the poorhouse could lead to all poor relief payments being withdrawn. The fact that many people chose to do so suggests that the poorhouse was viewed as a last resort by desperate people. The Board of Supervision handled appeals from people claiming the relief offered them was inadequate. Many of these appeals were rejected on the basis that the applicant had been offered a place in the poorhouse.

Peterkin's closing remarks also have contemporary counterparts, in the notion that those on benefits have it easy compared to the working population:

Another subject was frequently touched upon by those with whom I conversed on the matter of poorhouses, namely the diet of the inmates – in regard to which, a rather general misapprehension seems to prevail, many conceiving that the diet in a poorhouse would be of such a superior description to that of the people of the country where the poorhouse would be situated that a desire would be created among the paupers of participating in it, although they might have serious objections to the confinement and discipline of the poorhouse itself. Should poorhouses ever spring up in the Western Highlands, the dietary of the Easter Ross house, which is appended, might be adopted by them, except perhaps barley-broth and pea soup, neither of which, so far as I know, are articles of food in general use among the people of the Western Highlands and Islands. Potatoes, herring, oatmeal, and mil would seem to be the requisites of a diet-table for a poorhouse there.

So what was the menu provided for inmates of the Easter Ross Poorhouse? Residents were grouped into three classes: aged and infirm; adults; and children.

Class 1: Aged and infirm persons

Meal	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
Breakfast	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint
Dinner	Potatoes 1 ½ lb Barley broth 1 ½ pint	Oatcakes 6 oz Pea soup 1 ½ pints	Potatoes 1 ½ lb Milk ¾ pint	Oatcakes 6 oz Barley broth 1 ½ pint	Oatcakes 6 oz Rice ¾ ln with ½ pint milk or treacle	Potatoes 1 ½ lb Milk ¾ pint	Oatcakes 6 oz Pea soup 1 ½ pint
Supper	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint	Meal 3 ounces Milk or treacle water ½ pint

Class 2: Adult persons

Meal	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
Breakfast	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint
Dinner	Potatoes 2 lbs Barley broth 2 pints	Oatcakes 8 oz Pea soup 2 pts	Potatoes 2lbs Herring	Oatcake 8 oz Barley broth 2 pts	Oatcake 8 oz Pea soup 2 pts	Potatoes 2lbs Herring	Oatcake 8 oz Pea soup 2 pts
Supper	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint

Class 3: Children

Meal	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday	Saturday
Breakfast	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint	Meal 4 oz Milk or treacle water ¾ pint
Dinner	Potatoes 1lb Barley broth 1 ½ pt	Oatcake 6 oz Pea soup 1 ½ pt	Potatoes 1 ½ lb Herring	Oatcake 6 oz Barley broth 1 ½ pt	Oatcake 6 oz Rice 3 0z with ½ pt milk or treacle	Potatoes 1 ½ lb Herring	Oatcake 6 oz Pea soup 1 ½ pt
Supper	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt	Meal 3 oz Treacle water ½ pt

0 Comments

Death of a pauper

16/9/2016

0 Comments

This week we've been looking at the records of the Board of Supervision, a body established under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act of 1845 to implement the reformed system of poor relief in Scotland, and to act as an appeals body. The Board of Supervision lasted for 50 years until it was replaced when poor relief was transferred from Parochial Boards to local authorities.

We came across one noteworthy case which illustrates several aspects of the operation of the Board of Supervision and the workings (or, in this case, failings) of the poor relief system. The case first appears with no mention of the name of the poor man:

Thursday 30th November 1871
Urquhart (Inverness) – A letter from Dr John Fergusson, dated 27th November, requesting the Board to investigate death of a pauper alleged to have been wrongously removed to the Poorhouse was submitted. The Board directed the Secretary to transmit a copy of Dr Fergusson’s letter to the Procurator Fiscal, and to enquire where he is to make an investigation, as in that even the Board will suspend their action until the Crown Officers have either taken proceedings or have resolved not to do so.

The Board were usually fairly scrupulous about gathering evidence, and as such many cases dragged out for extended periods. The next mention of the case is nearly two months later.

Thursday, 11th January 1872
Urquhart (Inverness) – The letter of Dr John Fergusson, dated 27th November, respecting the case of Alexander McDonald, alleged to have been wrongously removed to Inverness Poorhouse, which caused his death shortly after his admission to the Poorhouse, which was before the Board on 30th November, and letters from the Governor of Inverness Poorhouse, dated 30th November, Mr Charles Stewart, Procurator Fiscal at Inverness, dated 2d December, Mr G Ellice, dated 4th December, Mr Charles Morton, Crown Agent, dated 27th December, and Inspector of Urquhart, dated 4th January 1872, thereanent, were submitted and directed to be circulated among the Legal Members.

Four weeks later, the Board again considered the evidence

Wednesday, 7th February 1872
Urquhart (Inverness) – The documents which were before the Board on 11th January, respecting the case of Alexander Macdonald, whose death is alleged to have been caused by his removal to Inverness Poorhouse, the same having been circulated among the Legal Members, were again submitted, and remitted to the Chairman to draft a Minute.

When it came, the Chairman's verdict was devastating

Thursday, 15th February 1872
Urquhart (Inverness). The documents respecting the case of Alexander McDonald, whose death is alleged to have been caused by his removal to Inverness Poorhouse, which were before the Board at last meeting, were again submitted (together with a Draft Minute by the Chairman). The Board approved the Draft Minute, which is as follows:

The Board have carefully perused the Precognition taken by the Procurator-Fiscal of Inverness-shire regarding the death of Alexander Macdonell or Macdonald, which was transmitted to them by direction of Crown Counsel for their consideration, and in order that they might take such steps as they might think proper. The Board regret to find that the conduct of the Parochial authorities in this case has been most unsatisfactory, and far from creditable to themselves.

It appears that Macdonell was a pauper belonging to Urquhart who resided with his sister in the Parish of Kilmonivaig. He was about 75 or 76 years of age, very frail in body, having been for a considerable time troubled with a severe chronic cough, and much confined to the house and bed, and almost am imbecile in mind. The Parochial Board of Urquhart, being dissatisfied with the amount of outdoor relief which the pauper was receiving, ordered his removal to his own Parish and subsequently to the Poorhouse at Inverness. The Medical Officer of Kilmonivaig certified, of date 15th June 1871, that the pauper was “in an unfit state to be removed”, and of date 24th August 1871, that he was “not in a fit state to be removed to the Poorhouse without serious injury to his health”. Both these certificates were given on soul and conscience. The Parochial Board of Urquhart, nevertheless, resolved to adhere to their previous determination, and on the 2d October 1871 they requested their Chairman and Deputy Chairman to arrange with their Medical Officer and Inspector for the pauper’s immediate removal from Glengarry to the Inverness Poorhouse. Accordingly upon the 17th or 18th of October the Medical Officer of Urquhart visited the pauper at his sister’s house in Glengarry, and granted a certificate, of date 18th October, to the effect that he considered him “a fit case for Hospital or Poorhouse treatment”. This certificate was not given on soul and conscience, and it was also defective in respect it did not bear that the pauper could be removed to Inverness (a distance of upwards of 40 miles) without injury to his health, and did not prescribe (as in such a case it should have done) the mode of conveyance to be used in effecting the removal.

The Inspector of Urquhart proceeded to Glengarry on the 25th of October, and forcibly removed the pauper to Glen Urquhart upon a wet stormy day in an open conveyance, although it appears that at Glengarry the defective character of the certificate upon which the Inspector was about to act was pointed out to him, and it was further suggested to him that the pauper, if removed at all, should be conveyed either in a close carriage or by the steamer.

On the 27th of October, the pauper was forwarded from Glen Urquhart to the Poorhouse at Inverness with the concurrence of the Medical Officer of Urquhart, but again he was conveyed in an open carriage, notwithstanding his delicate state of health and the inclemency of the season.

The unfortunate pauper died in the Poorhouse on the 25th November, but there does not appear to be evidence directly and distinctly connecting the death with the removal, and it is probably on that account that Crown Counsel have directed the Precognition to be transmitted to the Board, instead of ordering proceedings to be taken as a criminal charge. On the other hand, it is obvious that the removal and the manner in which it was executed could not have been beneficial to the health of the pauper, and there is but too much probability that they must have been prejudicial to it.

The Board are of opinion that this was not a case in which the power of removal should have been exercised at all. It was not a case in which the application of a test was requisite, and no reasonable person could suppose that the poor old man’s comfort would be increased by removing him from his sister’s care to a distant Poorhouse. The sole reason for removing the pauper was a difference of opinion between the Parochial authorities of Urquhart and Kilmonivaig as to the proper amount of outdoor allowance, and that question might have been settled by an appeal to this Board. As regards the mere matter of expense, the last month of the pauper’s life (including the cost of removal and the Poorhouse charges) was probably after all more costly to the Parish of Urquhart than any previous month of the pauper’s chargeability. It appears, therefore, to the Board that the Parochial Board of Urquhart acted neither wisely nor humanely in ordering this pauper to be removed to Inverness.

The Board are further of opinion that the Inspector or Urquhart committed a grave error of judgment in removing the pauper upon a manifestly defective certificate, and in a manner obviously improper in the circumstances of the case. The Inspector appears to have had at the time some misgivings as to the propriety of the course he was pursuing, and he seems to have considered that he was bound to carry out the wishes of his Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and that he would not have been justified in incurring the additional expense of a journey in the steamer or a close carriage. It is, therefore, necessary to inform him that even in executing a competent and legal order of the Parochial Board, an Inspector of Poor is responsible for carrying out his instructions in a legal, proper and humane manner. The Board consider the conduct of the Inspector of Urquhart in this case to have been highly culpable, and they hereby censure him for it.

Even through the bureaucratic politeness, it's clear that the Board believed that the Inspector's actions were a factor in the death of poor Alexander Macdonald. They didn't however go so far as to dismiss him - something that in other cases they were willing to do.

The Board of Supervision had a dual role - providing guidance to the local officers responsible for the operation of the Poor Law, and acting as an appeals body for applicants dissatisfied with the amount of support they received. We are currently indexing the appeals cases considered by the Board from its inception in 1845 to its abolition in 1895, and will be publishing the index in the next few months. Watch this space!

0 Comments

Ten years to build a poorhouse

Meals fit for a pauper

Death of a pauper

Old Scottish

Archives

Categories