Agricultural History Review, Volume 63 Part 2 (2015), p. 323

The Old Poor Law was relatively slow to be adopted in the North West of England, and, despite snippets of disparate evidence, the evolution of welfare is poorly documented in this region. As a consequence, our understanding of the extent of poverty and the nature of the welfare regime in this stereotypically poor region has hitherto been grossly inadequate. Healey’s own previous work forms the bedrock of existing knowledge along with notable contributions from others, but this pioneering book sets a new standard against which future regional studies will undoubtedly be measured.

Healey’s evidential base circumvents the near total absence of parochial Poor Law records for this period by making full use of a rich vein of evidence, the analysis of which is long overdue. Between 1626 and 1710 Lancashire Quarter Sessions received around 3000 first petitions for poor relief. Although these petitions only represent a very small proportion of all those who received relief – and an even smaller proportion of those who applied for relief – they are undoubtedly representative of the experience of the poor. As Healey is at pains to point out, the biographical information that these petitions contain provides unique evidence about the causes of poverty and, even allowing for exaggeration, omission and distortion in the claims of the petitioners, provide insights into the ‘cultural conception of deservingness which petitioners believed was held by magistrates’ (p. 107). One sub-theme of Healey’s work, therefore, is power, authority and the negotiation between pauper, parochial officers and magistrate. Indeed, the analysis presented of the conflict between townships and parishes is highly instructive, and shares some characteristics with subsequent disputes that occurred in Poor Law Unions in this region after 1837.

The evidence provides remarkable insights into the lives of the marginal poor, as well as those suffering due to broader economic circumstances. Some petitioners were undoubtedly marginal families who spent extended periods at risk of destitution. Others, however, were less marginal and some had been relatively prosperous, but a series or coincidence of events had seen them descend into poverty. Such detail is not revealed by overseers’ accounts and it is clear that the true value of the pauper petitions lies in the ‘startlingly evocative qualitative picture they present of the lives of the poor’ (p. 109).

The book is divided into three sections. Section 1 sets the scene with a summary of Lancashire’s economic development in the period, a highly readable retelling of the arrival and development of poor relief in the North West, and a detailed discussion of the major sources utilized. Although this section is essential to the book, it does lead to one of my major criticisms. Despite Healey’s account of the diverse economy, landscape and demography of the North West, this does not explicitly underpin his analysis of the Poor Law petitions in a significant way. Of course, Healey’s introduction is broad-brush background context and not intended as an analytical framework at the sub-regional level, but local variations in the economic, demographic, religious, administrative and political culture might be expected to form part of the analysis in what was a turbulent period in this complex region. Healey’s previous publications show that he understands well the northern part of the region, and the nature of its economy, topography and society. However, for elsewhere in the county he too frequently relies on stereotypes and generalizations. Lancashire is described as a ‘harsh landscape’ with ‘one of the wettest climates’ amongst English counties (p. 34). Such a description fails to do justice to the extremely fertile Lancashire plain with its low rainfall and deep soils, which was undergoing significant improvements during Healey’s period. His four pages on Lancashire agriculture need not detain readers of the Review. Healey’s assertion that there is evidence of backwardness here until ‘long into the eighteenth century’, citing Holt’s 1795 observation of the relative absence of turnips as evidence to support that claim, suggests a misreading of the nature of Lancashire’s dynamic, adaptable and highly productive rural economy.

Section 2 looks at the marginal poor and their survival strategies while Section 3 focuses on endemic poverty and crisis poverty. This discussion forms the bulk of the work, and it is here that the authority of Healey’s work is most evident. Indeed, the biographical detail presented here, despite its slightly anecdotal nature, reveals the complex and diverse lives of the Lancashire poor, illustrating their resourcefulness and helplessness in equal measure. But the interventions of the Poor Law – very new at the start of the period and firmly established by the end – provided welfare for those experiencing the most common and persistent causes of descending into poverty: old age, sickness and nuclear household failure. Yet the Poor Law also acted as a broader safety net enabling individuals, families and communities to cope with the impact of trade depression, harvest failures and epidemics. It is rare for a pioneering book to become the definitive account, but if the definitive book on Lancashire’s First century of welfare remains to be written, then this is a very worthy pioneer study that deserves a wide audience.