A "fit object for parochial relief": Poor Relief in Banff in the 19th century

During our time working from home during the pandemic, we have been indexing entries in the Banff Parochial Board minute book (catalogued with reference AS/BPbnf/5) which covers the period 1854 – 1874. This minute book was chosen to index out of the hundreds we hold because the main Poor Relief registers for Banff (record of applications and general register of the poor) haven’t survived, so the minute book is our main source for finding out who was applying for relief. This index is now available on our website.

The indexes are of value to family historians, who will be able to find out about the circumstances surrounding their family members applications to the Board. But the minute books are also of value as evidence of how the Parochial Boards worked.  

Parochial Boards were established in 1845 by the Poor Law (Scotland) Act and were made responsible for deciding on who could receive relief, the type of relief they received, and ensuring that the necessary finances were raised through the rates (prior to 1845 the relief of the poor was administered by the parish kirk session). Each civil parish had a parochial board, so we have records for over 100 boards across Aberdeen, Kincardine and Banff counties.  

There were two main issues the Parochial Boards had to consider when determining whether to give someone relief: whether they were entitled to claim in that parish (did they have a settlement there?); and did they have a legitimate reason for being unable to work. 

Settlement was determined on whether you were born in the parish, had lived there for a set amount of years, or had married a man with a settlement there. This leads to much correspondence between different boards about claims, trying to make the other responsible for the pauper.  

For example, below we can see that on the seventh of May 1861 Ann Allan’s settlement in Banff was confirmed by the Inspector of the Poor in Ellon by checking the Old Parochial Registers – Banff responds by ordering its own Inspector to investigate how long she had been in Ellon to see if they could claim that she had a residential settlement there:  

 

On the fourth of June 1861 the case of William Gall was heard by the Board in Banff: Banff and Chapel of Garioch were squabbling over who was liable, with Banff arguing that although he was born there, as he was born in the jail his mother’s parish of settlement was in fact liable: 

 

At the meeting of the fifth of March 1861 Ann Harper or Clark is determined to have a settlement because her husband (who had died at sea during a gale the previous year) had been born there.  

 

With regards to the second criteria, inability to work, the legislation stipulated that paupers had to be destitute or disabled before they could receive support through poor relief (although neither term was defined). Anyone who was able bodied and could work, was not able to claim relief (even if there was no work available). Destitute might include the elderly, the very young or those suffering from an illness. Disabled included those with physical or mental disability, but also those who were unable to work because of caring responsibilities (typically for children). Ultimately because these terms weren’t defined, this allowed parishes latitude as to their assessment of a person’s circumstances. 

We therefore see a focus on only supporting those who were unable to work, and discussions over whether someone was a deserving recipient of support: ultimately this might affect the type of support they were offered, or whether they were offered at all.  

So, in June 1861 Alexander Robertson was determined to be worthy of temporary relief “so as to enable him to get nourishing food [so] he would soon be able to earn a livelihood”: 

In June 1857 an allowance for the family of George Cruickshank, who had died, was discontinued as the eldest child was thirteen and in the Board’s opinion “should be doing something for himself”. This seems very harsh to us in the 21st century, where thirteen-year olds would still be considered children, but in the 1850s many thirteen-year olds would have been working to contribute to their family’s income.  

 

In March 1861 Elizabeth Rhind applied for relief after she had given birth as the father was not supporting them. Illegitimacy was exactly the sort of thing the nineteenth century parochial boards disapproved of, and in this case they consider she is able bodied and “also that the child is now six months” so presumably they don’t consider her disabled by having to care for the baby. This must have put Elizabeth in a very difficult position.  

Similar judgments were made about Helen McConachie or Petrie in August 1864: she had an illegitimate child but was receiving money from its father and “was to all appearance in ordinary health and employed sewing but of dissipated habits and anything but a deserving person” so she was removed from the parish’s poor roll.  

 

In contrast, in January 1866 Jane Leid or McLeod was seen as a “fit object for parochial relief” because she was in bad health and unable to work “being 84 years of age”. She was receiving an allowance from Lord Fife as she had previously worked at Duff House (an entry in 1863 records confirms that she was working in the gardens at that point). 

 

We also see several cases relating to the disappearance of sailors in the town: in September 1859 the board received a letter from the owner of the Agnes of Stonehaven, about a seaman, Alexander Wood, who had deserted his wife. The Board repaid the advances the owner had made to Wood’s wife.  

These cases contrast with previous examples of women seeking support with illegitimate children. Because they are married, the Board are more willing to offer support (and presumably intend on recovering any costs from the husbands when they reappear). In the case of Margaret Noble or Hepburn in 1855, we see that the Medical Officer certified that she was “confined to bed and unable to do anything at present for her support” after being deserted by her husband who was on the whaling ship Alexander Harvey.  

 

We also have the case of a sailor who was shipwrecked at Aberdeen in 1867: the Board offered temporary relief for him and his family.  

The Parochial Board was also responsible for those suffering from mental health problems, such as William Byrne, who became violent on Boxing Day 1860. The Inspector "found him throwing an old woman headlong down the stair. Immediately sent for a Policeman but before his arrival he tore his shirt and flannel linder [undershirt] in pieces from his back, he also attempted to stab me with a scissors”. Such cases were generally placed in Asylums in this period, in some instances as far afield as Glasgow.  

Banff did not operate a poor house in the same way as the City or Old Machar Parochial Boards in Aberdeen. The Parochial Board did discuss the possibility of operating a combination poor house in cooperation with other local parishes (as was done in Buchan and Kincardineshire with combination poor houses at Maud and Stonehaven serving groups of parishes) but this doesn't seem to have come into fruition. They did operate a “house for the helpless poor” in Carmelite Street but this seems to have been a small almshouse type institution. In fact, the keeper of the house Mrs Black was dismissed in September 1863 for giving birth to an illegitimate child, despite her pleading to be kept on, and was replaced that October by Mrs Reid. 

Finally, a couple of interesting entries that related to injuries sustained at the “Banff Factory” which it would be interesting to research further:  

Hopefully this post has given you a flavour of what a valuable source the parochial board minutes can be. We are hoping to develop a remote volunteering project which would involve volunteers indexing more of these poor relief minute books in their own homes using digitised images. If you would be interested in contributing to this project, please email archives@aberdeencity.gov.uk .