Workhouse Populations of the Preston Union, 1841–61 Lewis Darwen Abstract The census enumerators’ books (CEBs) have provided fertile ground for studies of workhouse populations in recent years, though it has been acknowledged that work remains to be done on different regions and periods to develop our understanding of these institutions and the paupers who resided therein. This article will examine the indoor pauper populations of the Preston union, in Lancashire, over three census years from 1841. The region, which is notable for a protracted campaign of resistance to the New Poor Law and its associated workhouse system, has been previously neglected in studies of workhouse populations focusing on the decades immediately after the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. It will be shown that the profile of the union’s workhouse populations broadly mirrors those found elsewhere at the aggregate level, but that important variations reflected local and central policy. A high concentration of able-bodied paupers—in particular—seems to indicate ideas governing local policy which were not carried out elsewhere. The New Poor Law of 1834 heralded the era of the Union workhouse, the great embodiment of pauperism and enduring symbol of nineteenth century welfare provision. Asserting that a considerable proportion of outdoor relief was falling into the hands of the ‘undeserving poor’, the framers of the legislation sought to redefine the principles through which relief was administered by subjecting all such persons to a ‘workhouse test’. Under this test outdoor relief was to be substituted for an offer of accommodation in a workhouse, and workhouses were to act as a deterrent following the principle of ‘less eligibility’, which meant that they were to be less appealing to prospective paupers than independence outside their walls. Only the genuinely destitute, it was argued, would accept an offer of the workhouse.1 This was the theory, but in practice a uniform system of poor relief administration guided by the workhouse test was never implemented. The strength of local resistance to the New Poor Law, particularly in parts of the north of England, and considerable socio-economic diversity between a broadly industrial north and agricultural south, meant the official orders disseminated by central legislators restricting outdoor relief were never universally applied. The authorities were at first concerned with abolishing the allowance system in the south and east, and the Prohibitory Order, which forbade outdoor relief to able-bodied males and females, had been introduced into much of this part of the country by the early 1840s. Most poor law unions in Lancashire and Yorkshire, however, 1 Parliamentary Papers 1834, 27–39 (44), p. 147: Report from His Majesty’s Commissioners for Inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws. 33 Lewis Darwen continued to administer relief entirely without formal restrictions until the less stringent Relief Regulation Order was issued in 1852. This applied only to able-bodied males, and allowed outdoor relief to be provided in exchange for a task of work.2 Unions operating under this order were never restricted to offering only indoor relief to any class of pauper. While the paucity of empirical local studies means the actual effects of these orders remains unclear, their application across England and Wales marks out one of the defining characteristics of the poor law before and after 1834: regional variation.3 Moreover, the central authorities’ preoccupation with able-bodied pauperism meant that children, the aged and infirm, the sick and the disabled—groups which collectively accounted for the overwhelming majority of poor law relief claimants—continued to be treated entirely at the discretion of boards of guardians. Poor relief was therefore administered not only according to official orders but also according to accepted practice as defined locally, and tied inextricably to the nature of the economy and traditional welfare customs. Thus, it is only with detailed knowledge of local welfare policy, set firmly within the socio-economic context of a region, that the composition of workhouse populations can be properly appreciated and understood. Historiography A vast amount of literature exists relating to workhouses as institutions and to their role within the wider poor law framework, and though it is not possible (or necessary) to survey interpretations here, it is important to consider the recent shift away from institutional and legislative approaches, and towards quantitative analysis of indoor pauper populations based primarily on the census enumerators’ books (CEBs).4 Beginning with Page’s study of the Leicester union workhouse in 1881, a series of studies have taken a union or a group of contiguous unions as their focus and examined a single census year, typically 1851 or 1881.5 Only Seal’s recent study of the Cheltenham and Belper unions between 1851 and 1911 has 2 F. Driver, Power and Pauperism: the Workhouse System, 1834–1884 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 47–56. 3 Historians remain divided over the exact nature of regional and local variation, though no one would doubt its existence. See S. King, Poverty and Welfare in England, 1700–1850: a Regional Perspective (Manchester, 2000); S. Hindle, On the Parish: The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England, c.1550–1750 (Oxford, 2004). Much more work needs to be done in this area, particularly on the New Poor Law. 4 The shift to studies of workhouse populations has occurred alongside a broader movement to understand the conditions of workhouses and the experience of the inmates who resided within their walls. See, for example, D. Green, ‘Pauper Protests: Power and Resistance in Early Nineteenth-Century London Workhouses’, Social History, 31 (2006), pp. 137–59. 5 Previous articles on this subject include: S. Page, ‘Pauperism and the Leicester Workhouse in 1881’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Architectural and Archaeological Society, 63 (1989), pp. 85–95; A. Hinde and F. Turnbull, ‘The Populations of Two Hampshire Workhouses, 1851–1861’, Local Population Studies,61 (1998), pp. 38–53; N. Goose, ‘Workhouse Populations in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: the Case of Hertfordshire’, Local Population Studies, 62 (1999), pp. 52–69; D.G. Jackson, ‘Kent Workhouse Populations in 1881: a Study Based on the Census Enumerators’ Books’, Local Population Studies, 69 (2002), pp. 51–66; D.G. Jackson, ‘The Medway Union Workhouse, 1876–1881: a Study Based on the Administration and Discharge Registers and the Census Enumerators’ Books’, Local Population Studies, 75 (2005), pp. 11–32; A. Gritt and P. Park, ‘The Workhouse Populations of Lancashire in 1881’, Local Population Studies, 86 (2011), pp. 37–65. 34 Workhouse Populations of the Preston Union, 1841–61 taken a longitudinal approach.6 Collectively, these studies have shown that the composition of workhouse populations, even between neighbouring unions, could vary considerably. Local policy initiatives are an acknowledged source of this diversity, though with the exception of Hinde and Turnbull’s article, studies have generally lacked a local evidence base from which to explore this in any detail.7 More demonstrable have been socio- economic implications. Goose concluded his study of Hertfordshire in 1851 by relating variation between unions mainly to ‘basic disparities of economic structure’.8 This line of analysis has subsequently been developed elsewhere by Gritt and Park, who divided Lancashire into three broad settlement types—conurbation, urban industrial and rural— and found marked distinctions in the profile of workhouse inmates between each. Notably, women were predominant among adults under the age of 45 years in the conurbations, and men overwhelmingly so among the elderly in the rural unions.9 However, while variation is a significant feature of indoor pauper populations, at the aggregate level clear trends have emerged through these studies. Broadly, it has been shown that workhouses were dominated by the young and the old, with males forming a majority particularly in old age. Among the adult population, the married were far less likely to be found in a workhouse than their unmarried and widowed counterparts. Moreover, as the nineteenth century made way for the twentieth, Seal has shown that the workhouses she examined were increasingly dominated by the elderly, who became a majority by 1911.10 This appears to have been mirrored at national level, and reflects the evolving role of the workhouse within the wider welfare system.11 These are important patterns, though it should be noted that the ‘snapshot’ data provided by the CEBs masks the turnover of paupers across shorter periods of time. Using admission and discharge registers, Goose and Jackson have shown that workhouse populations could fluctuate significantly, with a notable peak during the winter periods. Within this, both found that a far larger proportion of men entered the workhouse than the CEBs suggest, the disparity being the result of males forming the majority of short-term inmates and were consequently less likely to be caught in the census.12 Nonetheless, as Goose has noted, the CEBs remain the central source for studying workhouse populations as they are ‘available for every locality’, providing the only means of comparison across the country.13 This article uses the CEBs to examine the indoor pauper populations of a single poor law union, Preston, during the three census years which followed the introduction of the New Poor Law in Lancashire from 1837. The article complements previous studies and 6 C. Seal, ‘Workhouse Populations in the Cheltenham and Belper Unions: a Study Based on the Census Enumerators’ Books, 1851–1911’, Family and Community History, 13 (2010), pp. 83–100. 7 Hinde and Turnbull, ‘Populations of Two Hampshire Workhouses’. 8 Goose, ‘Workhouse Populations’, p. 66. 9 Gritt and Park, ‘Workhouse Populations of Lancashire’, p. 64. 10 Seal, ‘Workhouse Populations’, p. 98. 11 Crowther, The Workhouse System, 1834–1929: the History of an English Social Institution (London, 1983), pp.