Nicholls, Angela. Almshouses in Early Modern England: Charitable Housing in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, 1550-1725. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2017.
It is a widely accepted principle that shelter is a basic human necessity, and the administrators of almshouses in early modern England attempted to address that need in a way that was fitting for the time. In Almshouses in Early Modern England: Charitable Housing in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, 1550-1725, Angela Nicholls makes the case that the almshouses of this time were highly diverse in their forms and styles of operation, and also served their local communities as vital providers of welfare. She challenges the established historiography by arguing for the high degree of variation in almshouse practices that counters the standard portrayal of the almshouse as “a quaint but largely irrelevant institution, providing care and shelter for a small number of respectable, privileged elderly people” (224). Nicholls is an Associate Fellow at the University of Warwick, and this book is focused on her particular concentration of research, namely, almshouses and their place in the welfare systems of the early modern period. Here, Nicholls employs archival county records, particularly from Durham, Warwickshire, and Kent, and covers a little less than two centuries to make her arguments about almshouses in early modern England. A good number of primary and secondary sources are utilized in the work as well. She integrates both quantitative and qualitative data throughout the book, including multiple tables and charts as well as numerous examples of the experiences of individuals.
A main theme of Nicholls’ book concerns the difference that existed between the aspiration of housing welfare policy and the real-world actuality of how housing for the poor was tangibly achieved. The legislation of the period reveals a desire for institutional solutions focused on work and discipline in order to address those who were poor for socially acceptable reasons, and also those who were perceived as vagrants and idlers. But the actual administration of housing policy was far less organized or uniform. While legislation enacted parish taxes for poor relief, thereby making local parishes responsible for the poor in their areas, Nicholls shows that even with these taxes, almshouses very often relied on the philanthropy of wealthy benefactors, whose personal whims often dictated how the almshouse was operated. She shows that the founders of almshouses were inspired by an array of diverse motivations, often founding almshouses in order to display their wealth, status, and virtue. These selfish motivations are evident in the fact that founders sometimes named their almshouses after themselves or required almspeople to wear insignia bearing the founder’s initials. But it wasn’t all self-aggrandizement, as many founders were spurred by notions of religious charity or humanist ideas of social responsibility.
Just as there were many differing motivations to found almshouses, their administration and operation was also highly variable, as were the residents whom they accepted. Almshouse residents could be young or old, male or female, they were sometimes able to work, and experienced differing levels of poverty. The high degree of variation in the demographics and circumstances of residents supports Nicholls’ argument of the diversity of almshouses in different locations. The most common requirements for residents were that they had been living in the local parish, not in a faraway place, and that they were ‘deserving’ poor, generally defined as someone having been reduced to poverty through no fault of their own.
Many almshouses were quite small, in that they had room for relatively few people, and Nicholls demonstrates that gaining a place in an almshouse was most likely highly desired by poor people due to the substantial benefits that it brought. There were numerous advantages in being an almshouse resident, the principal one being that placement in an almshouse was for life, with expulsions rarely occurring. Many residents had a room to themselves and their own hearth for warmth and cooking, and some almshouses also provided stipends to residents. While these stipends were often insufficient for survival, necessitating almspeople to work or rely on other forms of charity, their advantage came from the fact that they were guaranteed and regular, providing a certain amount of stability for almshouse residents. In addition to the tangible benefits, there were social benefits to having a place in an almshouse. The general design and functioning of almshouses conferred a degree of individuality and autonomy on the people who lived there. It afforded them the opportunity to live as independently as one could while receiving this kind of charity. Additionally, a place in an almshouse served as a signal of acceptance in the local community. Though poor, almspeople seemed to enjoy social inclusion in their communities; the fact that they depended on charity did not seem to be stigmatized. Despite these points, Nicholls still argues that almshouses differed so widely across localities that “it would be hard to say that there was such a thing as a typical almshouse” (138).
Nicholls concludes the book with a case study of a specific almshouse that effectively supports the arguments she makes throughout the book. She details the specific workings of the almshouse in the parish of Leamington Hastings in Warwickshire to show how this particular almshouse fit in with the surrounding community. The almshouse presents a picture of pragmatic decisions being made to meet the needs of the local poor while maintaining social order and economic stability in the parish. Essentially, decision makers were attempting to do what was best for their community, and Nicholls is attempting to show that what was best would differ across communities, and therefore, there was not a typical way of managing and operating almshouses.
A shortcoming of Almshouses is that it leaves readers in the dark about the broader facts of poverty in early modern England. One is left wondering just how much of a social problem poverty was at this time, and what became of poor people who did not find a place in an almshouse. Nicholls does mention that parishes were engaged in poor relief outside of almshouses, but as almshouses had relatively few spaces, one wonders where other poor people went. Were they funneled into workhouses or prisons? Were they left in wandering homelessness? More background on the wider issue of poverty may have given readers a greater appreciation of the important role that almshouses played in communities. Despite that drawback, Almshouses should appeal to both economic and social historians. Nicholls’ examination of how almshouses fit into the wider issue of welfare will be useful to those historians focused on economics, and her inclusion of many examples of the individual people involved in and affected by the almshouse system, from founders to almspeople, will be of interest to historians concerned with the social aspects of the topic. The case study of the Leamington Hastings almshouse also contains aspects that brush up against perspectives of microhistory and history from below.
Overall, Nicholls’ examination of the administration of almshouses in early modern England reveals a surprisingly benevolent, non-judgmental, and localized system of welfare provision in communities, and demonstrates their diverse and philanthropical provision for the genuinely impotent poor.
