Emigration and the New Poor Law: The Norfolk Emigration Fever of 1836

Abstract

In 1836 under the auspices of section 62 of the New Poor Law, 3,069 poor people from Norfolk were assisted to emigrate to North America. Their passages, and various other requirements including spending money, travel to the port, equipment for the voyage and settling of debts, were paid for out of the poor rates. The rationale for this outflow of people revolved around the issue of surplus labour, which was believed to have a corrosive and unsettling effect upon the state of rural society. Emigration had long been seen as a potential safety valve for surplus labour. Clause 62 can be traced back to the vigorous debate about assisted emigration associated with Robert Wilmot Horton. 2 For one emigration season, it looked as if parochial government were capable of rising to the challenge of solving its surplus labour problems and simultaneously satisfying the needs of the labour-hungry British colonies. This paper examines the Norfolk emigration fever by using a previously unused data set of nineteenth-century emigration (Ministry of Health files held at the Public Record Office). It argues that assisted emigration was the result of a concerted rational policy, applied by the parish officers aimed to benefit emigrants and those left behind. The policy was neither haphazard nor accidental and, though inspired by fear of the consequences of implementing the New Poor Law, was not a panicked response. It argues that the arrangements for assisted emigration resulted in a process of interchange and interaction between rich and poor which makes a mockery of the term 'shovelling out paupers'. 3 The poor emigrants who were targeted were assisted because they were good labourers, not useless indigents incapable of providing for themselves. The findings shed further light on the nature of emigrating populations, the emigratory process and the mindset of both rich and poor at the time of the introduction of the New Poor Law.

Migration, social policy, and power in historical perspective

“…It was justified as a measure to deal with surplus labor in rural regions of industrializing England, while constituting a measure to populate the empire. 5 However, promoters of assisted emigration as a form of social policy had to deal with the conflict resulting from emigration also being used as a form of punishment known in England as ‘transportation’ (Howells, 1996). As the Law of Settlement remained in force, local parishes continued to be financially responsible for their poor in union workhouses.…”

“…Under these circumstances, it would only seem rational for local parishes to support the emigration of their paupers. Howells (1996: 90) identified a positive statistical relationship between the cost for annual relief per head and the emigration rate among parishes in Norfolk. The overwhelming majority of those supported to leave the country were young families.…”

“…The overwhelming majority of those supported to leave the country were young families. Howells (1996: 122) wrote,. .…”

“… 4. A phrase that was initially used by Charles Buller, a contemporary of John Stuart Mill, in his critique of assisted emigration; cf. Howells (1996: 18). …”

“… 5. The number of those assisted to emigrate was comparatively small; only 26,000 people were assisted to leave over the 26-year period during which assisted emigration was employed (Howells, 1996: 54). …”