Working-Class Self-Help in Nineteenth-Century England

Responses to industrialization

Eric Hopkins

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315468716
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

First published in 1995, this book provides a readable survey of the three major forms of working-class self-help in nineteenth century England: the trade unions, the friendly societies and the co-operative movement. It is accessible to an introductory student readership as well as providing a critical appraisal of all types and forms of self-help available to the industrial working-class. Unlike former studies, the author examines trade unionism alongside friendly societies and the co-operative movement and shows how each developed in response to the challenge of industrialization and the demands of urban industrial life. The strengths and limitations of self-help approaches are assessed and wider issues of working-class culture and identity are examined.

This book will be of interest to those studying the history of social welfare, class and industrial Britain.

Part One
The friendly societies

Chapter One
Friendly societies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

In their heyday in the nineteenth century, the leading friendly societies often claimed to have been founded many centuries previously, even as far back as Roman times, but literary evidence seems to show that they were first in existence far more recently than this. Certainly there were friendly societies in Scotland in the early seventeenth century, and also Huguenot friendly societies in London at the end of that century. In 1797, Defoe remarked that "another branch of insurance is by contribution, or (to borrow the term from that before mentioned) Friendly Societies; which is, in short, a number of people entering into a mutual compact to help one another, in case any disaster or distress fall upon them". Thus, Defoe described the Sailors' Chest at Chatham as being a friendly society, and some of the societies of the eighteenth century appear to have been formed to protect work people in more hazardous occupations. For example, there were two acts of parliament, one in 1757 and the other in 1792, the first setting up a compulsory scheme for assisting coalheavers on the Thames, and the second providing another compulsory fund for skippers and keelmen on the Wear. In both cases the basic idea seems to have been to reduce the cost to the local poor rates of supporting the sick and aged and their widows. Many friendly societies, however, were not confined in membership to any one occupation, but were simply a means of insurance against sickness or accident, with appropriate funeral benefits.

Such societies appear to have grown much more numerous during the last 40 years of the eighteenth century, and Professor Gosden has suggested that by the end of the century there were probably some thousands of these societies in existence. Sir Frederick Eden, the contemporary writer on the poor, put their number at about 7,200 societies in 1801, with a membership of 648,000 - a very substantial

Table 1 Friendly societies in England and Wales, 1803-15.

Year	No. of societies	Total membership
1803	9,672	704,350
1813	–	821,319
1814	–	838,728
1815	–	925,429

number out of a population in Great Britain of about 10.5 million. Subsequently, the returns of the overseers of the poor, although not to be relied on in detail, show increasingly large numbers (see Table 1). These figures were said at the time to represent nearly 8.5 per cent of the resident population of the country.

Why were friendly societies increasingly popular in the second half of the eighteenth century? Partly their increase in numbers may be attributed to the growth in population of the time, an increase, as we have already noted, of about 50 per cent between 1750 and 1801; but more significant, perhaps, was the development of the Industrial Revolution. It was very noticeable in the early nineteenth century that membership of the societies was most concentrated in industrial areas. Thus, according to the Poor Law returns of 1815, Lancashire, the seat of the fast-developing cotton industry, had 17 per cent of its population in friendly societies. The West Riding, home of the woollen cloth industry, had a similarly high membership figure, while industrial counties such as Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, all had over 10 per cent in membership. By way of contrast, rural counties such as Dorset, Kent, Lincolnshire and Sussex, had less than 5 per cent of their population as members. It seems clear that industrial occupations with their greater risks of ill health and injury (not to mention the hazards to health in the insanitary conditions of the new industrial towns, where it was well-known that mortality rates were far higher than in the countryside) supplied compelling reasons for joining a friendly society.

The point is well-illustrated by the growth of friendly society activity in the Black Country, the industrial region to the west of Birmingham. In the southwest corner of this area, Stourbridge was a rapidly expanding, small industrial town manufacturing iron, glass and fire-brick, and mining coal and clay. Its population more than doubled in

Table2 Sick dub membership in Stourbridge, 1810.

No.	Appellations	Date	Years	Membership
1	Cross, Swinford	1752	58	78
2	Mitre	1769	41	81
3	Pipe	1773	37	81
4	Vine	1777	33	126
5	Talbot	1778	32	136
6	Duke of Wellington	1778	32	40
7	Rose and Crown, Swinford	1779	31	60
8	Queen's Head, Amblecote	1779	31	71
9	Seven Stars	1780	30	57
10	Fish, Amblecote	1783	27	45 Fem.
11	New Inn	1784	26	40 Fem.
12	Swan, Swinford	1784	26	90
13	Presby. Cong. Prov. Soc.	1784	26	22
14	Mitre	1785	25	34 Fem.
15	Mitre	1785	25	121
16	Duke Wellington, Swinford	1786	24	60
17	Holly Bush, Swinford	1789	21	67
18	New Inn	1793	17	90
19	Bell	1799	11	130
20	Chawnell Inn	1800	10	61
21	Horse Shoe	1804	6	64
22	Indep. Cong. Christian Soc.	1809	1	13
				1,567

the first half of the nineteenth century. According to a reliable contemporary observer, sick club membership in the town in 1810 was as shown in Table 2.

William Scott, the compiler of these figures (a prominent local Unitarian), then divided up the societies into three areas- the town itself, and two outlying areas (see Table 3).

Table 3 Distribution of sick dubs in Stourbridge, 1810.

Area	No. of societies	Membership	Population	Proportion of population
Stourbridge township, Lye, Wollaston, Wollescote Upper Swinford	14	1,035	3,431	1:3
Upper Swinford	6	416	3,766	1:9
Amblecote	2	116	1,002	1:8
	22	1,567	8,199	1:5

Scott remarked on the very high proportion of societies in Stourbridge itself, and commented that his figures for the township might include "many members probably resident in the country hamlets elsewhere, which may account for the great apparent disproportion between this and the other districts". There is the further point that Scott's figures are based on the 1801 Census and not the figures for 1811, which would be more appropriate. The 1811 figures would reduce his Stourbridge fraction to a quarter, and overall from one-fifth to one-sixth. Nevertheless, the figures are striking enough.

Indeed, the figures are even more remarkable if a further simple analysis is attempted. In 1811 there were 3,940 males of all ages in the district. If membership of the female societies is excluded, there were 1,447 members of either male or mixed societies. It is a reasonable assumption that the majority of these 1,447 members were men –probably 1,000 or more. Thus, if Scott's figures are approximately right, one in four males in 1810 were members of friendly societies (and an even higher proportion if male children are deducted from the population figures). All things considered, it seems likely that Scott's own qualification regarding outside membership must be taken into account (and presumably there would be a small degree of multiple membership as well); but when all such considerations are weighed, it still seems clear that a wide membership of benefit societies prevailed in this part of the Black Country. This membership was substantially above the national average of the resident population quoted earlier in this chapter of about 8.5 per cent in 1818.

Such societies traditionally had their meeting place in local inns, as the Stourbridge list makes clear. (About half of those listed are still in existence at the time of writing.) They were purely local affairs, run very informally under a variety of names, "sick and draw clubs" being a term often used in the Black Country. As such, they are to be distinguished from the national, affiliated orders which will be discussed in the next chapter. A further distinction should be drawn between these sick clubs and other savings societies that often met in public houses, such as clothing clubs, boot and shoe clubs, and even watch clubs. The basic aims of the average club were simple: insurance against ill health, and a burial grant for a respectable funeral - something of great importance to working-class men and women.

There is no doubt that industrialization encouraged the growth of this kind of friendly society. A further example is provided by Birmingham, where benefit clubs were as common as in the Black Country. William Hutton, historian of Birmingham, writing in the 1780s, remarked disapprovingly of their habit of meeting in public houses:

As liquor and labour are inseparable, the imprudent member is apt to forget to quit the clubroom when he has spent his necessary two pence, but continues there to the injury of his family.

Thomas Attwood, the Birmingham banker and reformer, told the House of Commons in 1812 that the help of the clubs was very great, and that there was hardly any industrial worker in Birmingham who did not belong to a club. This was obviously an exaggeration, for unskilled workers whose earnings were limited and irregular, could not afford to keep up the regular payments made necessary by membership. Nevertheless, clubs certainly were very numerous in Birmingham, and Rawlinson's Report to the General Board of Health on the town in 1849 lists 213 registered societies, of which about 159 met in inns, public houses, or beershops. These societies had at least 30,000 members (there were probably as many again in unregistered societies). Rawlinson gives the names of some of the societies, for example, the Sick Man's Friendly Society, Abstainers' Gift, Society of Total Abstinence and the Rational Sick and Burial Society. Some had even more striking names - the True Blue Society, the Honourable Knights of the Wood, the Modern Druids, the Royal Dragoons and the Society of Royal Veterans.

What was the attitude of the government and of the middle classes generally to friendly societies? In fact, opinions were divided. Some were decidedly hostile, because friendly societies were thought to be a disguised form of trade union activity and, as will be seen in subsequent chapters, trade combinations were actually made illegal under the Combinations Acts of 1799 and 1800. This belief was not entirely without foundation- a minority of benefit clubs were, in fact, a cloak for combination in particular trades. Again, middle-class hostility was still displayed in the mid-nineteenth century against the convivial practices of many societies. Rawlinson was as critical of this aspect as Hutton had been in the previous century, singling out the annual pro cessions as a sheer waste of money:

Vast sums of money are expended by these clubs on unmeaning, gaudy and childish show. Once a year, usually in Whitsun week, they hold processions. More money is spent in processions, in loss of labour and in attendant expenses, than would pay the rent-charge of a full supply of water, and perfect sewerage.

On the other hand, the government was well aware that the genuine friendly society provided a form of self-help that was invaluable in keeping down the poor rates. There was increasing concern at the increase in poor rates as industrialization and the population grew in the early nineteenth century. It is not surprising, therefore, that the government was prepared to countenance the growth of friendly societies, provided that the local magistrates were able to keep an eye on them. Rose's Act of 1793 actually welcomed the growth of the movement:

... that the protection and encouragement of friendly societies in this kingdom for securing by voluntary subscription of the members thereof, separate funds for the mutual relief and maintenance of the said members, in sickness, old age, and infirmity, is likely to be attended by very beneficial effects ...

The act then went on to provide for the registration of societies with magistrates at Quarter Sessions, though this was not compulsory, so that smaller bodies such as Christmas clubs and slate clubs were not obliged to register. Furthermore, under Section 17 of the act, no member of a registered society could be removed to his place of settlement until he actually became chargeable to the poor rates. Removal of this kind was later abolished, but the close connection between friendly society membership and keeping the poor rates down can clearly be seen. As a result of this act, friendly societies could both sue and be sued in their corporate capacity.

Subsequently, during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815) the friendly society movement continued to gr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part One The friendly societies
• Part Two The trade unions
• Part Three The co-operative movement
• Conclusions
• Select bibliography
• Index