ASSESS THE ROLE OF SELF-HELP THAT SHAPED THE FRIENDLY SOCIETIES IN THE 19^TH CENTURY.

This essay will discuss the role of the Friendly Society, and its function as a vehicle of self-help in the 19^th century. Its principal content will examine the role of self-help as perceived by the Victorian worker himself, and less the organisation to which he aspired to join. (It is acknowledged that other self-help organisations exist, each with their own good and bad points. In the main these are 'Trade-unions' and the 'Co-operative Societies'.)

To define what a friendly society is, we could do no better than quote Daniel Defoe, (1797) cited in Hopkins (1995) who said. "Another branch of insurance is by contribution, or friendly society; which is, in sort, a number of people entering into a mutual compact to help one another, in case any disaster or distress fall upon them". Gosden (1973) says "A friendly society represented an attempt by working men to meet their social and convivial needs, as well as to insure themselves against the hazards of sickness and death". One of the earliest friendly societies, was probably 'The United General Sea Box of Borrow-Stounness Friendly Society (1634) The 'Box' referred to was the triple locked chest that contained the societies cash funds. (Although by 1817, the 'Savings Bank Act' allowed friendly societies to deposit their fund at favourable rates of interest). As early as 1757 the government founded a compulsory contributory scheme for 'coalheavers' on the Thames, and in 1792 the scheme was extended to cover skippers and 'keelmen'. This was seen as a ploy to reduce the call upon the 'poor-rate' by high-risk workers.

When we look at life in the Victorian era, we are assailed by the dogma of perceived 'Victorian Values' of manliness, godliness, moral turpitude, etc. Smiles (1859) wrote, "The spirit of self-help is the root of all genuine growth in the individual". Also " Relying on yourself was preferred morally - and economically - to depending on others". (His book sold over 250,000 copies). These 'values' were much espoused by the middle to upper classes as the ideals by which all men should live by. Bannerman (1996) says "Even the lower middle classes aspired to raise their profile to embrace these Victorian values, and as a means of moving upwards and away from the lower class of the casual unqualified worker, and of course the 'peasant worker", (whose wages were rarely above subsistence level anyhow.) These men were the respectable 'urban artisans'. This class of skilled worker was paid more, and many of them had to some degree a percentage of disposable income. Neave (1991) says, "That friendly society membership was traditionally seen as the badge of the 'artisan'".

Whilst these artisans had a small disposable income, they could never raise any capital to purchase major goods, or pay for a Christian burial etc. (The middle and upper class could of course realise their holdings or investments to meet unexpected debt calls and monetary crisis states.) From the wish of the artisan for some form of help outside that of 'parish relief' the concept of the self-help friendly society was born. Charities were often seen as run by middle to upper class persons to whom the worker had to belittle himself to obtain help. Government agencies were also suspect. Ittmann (1995) says that "The 'Combers Aid Society' set up in 1854 (set up by government) to help destitute wool combers, simply encouraged and paid for their emigration to reduce their long term costs, and thus lessen the applications for poor relief in periods of depression". The Victorian moralist Mary Marcet through her writings, such as 'Conversations on Political Economy (1816)', advises both thrift and friendly societies in a very self demeaning passage when she says "The rich man can do no better service than by employing them as wage-earners. If the poor become to numerous, wages will drop until the balance has been restored by a rise in infant mortality. They ought also to be urged to ensure their security by thrift and through friendly societies".

Cook (1973) points out that "Roses (1793) 'Friendly Societies Act', whilst calling for registration, came out in favour of the friendly society, and strove to give then legal status, with protection of their funds". The government itself and some middle-class saw the friendly society as a trade union in disguise, and as such would fall foul of the 'Combination Acts' of 1799 and 1800. Hopkins (1995) says, "Their belief was not entirely without foundation - a minority of benefit clubs were, in fact, a cloak for combinations in particular trades". In general however, the government was aware that the friendly society provided a form of self-help that was invaluable in keeping down the 'poor rate'.

When we ask why the artisan should join a friendly society, we arrive at two possible answers. Firstly, conviviality, being a member of a peer group of self minded people i.e. respectable, thrifty and skilled etc., certainly emboldens the Victorians concept of self-help through the dignity of honourable employment. And likened themselves to their masters, (the new 'Meritocracy'). A much more serious and down to earth reason is that of, falling foul of the 'Poor Law Act'. The end of a workers earning capability through age, illness or injury was looked upon with dread. With no form of government social benefits etc, the disadvantaged workers only recourse was to apply for 'poor relief'. Prior to 1834, the old poor law did allow some benefits to be paid out as outdoor relief, which allowed the worker and family some degree of dignity. It also allowed him to live alongside his peer group.

A rather strange reason for membership and failure is given by the historian Mingay (1976) who saw friendly societies as an original hotbed of revolution, and says: -

"As in the towns, the second half of the 19^th century saw a decline of rioting and more peaceful attempts at reform in the countryside. … The labourers gradually moved towards constructive ways of mending their lot, with friendly societies and benefit clubs, which had first appeared long before, (and incidentally offered facilities for savings against death or injury). The clubs met regularly in the village alehouse, and these gatherings, it is suggested, though nominally peaceable, were occasions when grievances were aired in an atmosphere of beery recklessness, and where the origin of a number of riots which marked the early decades of the century. But often the membership was to small and too unstable for success, the members fell out in bad times, and as a result income often failed to match outgoings, and financial collapse ensued".

G.E.Mingay, (Emeritus Professor of Agrarian History, Univ. Kent at Canterbury.)

The new 'Poor Law Amendment Act (1834), sought to reduce or stop outdoor relief. Therefore anyone seeking help from the 'Poor Law Guardians' after 1834 would be required to enter the workhouse, where conditions were deliberately made austere in order to deter idlers and scroungers. Hopkins (1995) says, "That after 1834 the membership of friendly societies shot up as working people sought to guard against sickness and the threat of having to enter the dreaded workhouse". Perhaps the greatest fear was that of dying and being buried in a 'Paupers' grave (mass grave), with its lack of Christian dogma etc. To avoid this many workers where simply paying members into a 'Burial Society' to negate this perceived horror. (In the 'Black Country' many clubs where simply 'Sick and Draw Clubs' and had no other benefits).

Some friendly societies existed as 'save and loan clubs' related to a specific deficit, such as providing funds for members to build there own houses on a rota system. (Each member had to have two bondsmen to guarantee completion of agreement). These societies were seen as methods of self-improvement through labour and thrift, and commanded much respect from their peer groups.

The popularity of friendly societies is reflected in their statistics. Ittmann (1995) says "In 1874, C.L.Stanley, Assistant Commissioner for the Committee on Friendly Societies, reported that there were over 10,000 members of friendly societies in Bradford compared to only 3,800 trade union members". Whilst the 'friendly' part of the society, meeting often in pubs, with a portion of the proceeds going for liquor was the social side of the society. Smiles (1875) (In 'Thrift' (1879)) saw no harm in this, and he says "The public house is everybody's house and without them, very few societies would have existed" It would be wrong to assume that the organisation itself was equally easygoing. The Victorian concept of self-help, embodied thrift, self-care of monies, and fairness in its distribution. Thus the rules and regulations disavowed laziness and scrounging, recognising only honourable work, regular thrift, and probably a history of good health before acceptance.

Certain classes of tradesmen where considered a bad health risk, and as such would be unable to obtain membership of a friendly society. Hunt (1981) quotes the following, "Certain trades such as the 'Sheffield Cutlery Grinders' who had a high risk of silicosis, Potters with the acquired risk of lead poisoning, Miners with their early risk of pneumoconiosis, were an example of the high risk workers who would after only a few years become a permanent drain upon the societies resources."

Judicious use of the funds to finance sickness, burial, and widows benefit payments allowed a member to be assured that for most of their problems, the friendly society was there for their comfort and relief. This made for a better, more conscientious worker and a greater contributor to the countries wealth and well being. The Victorian belief in honesty and bona fide ensured that self-help was awarded only to the deserving member. Sickness certificates and death certificates etc. was often required before benefit was paid out. Dangerous sports and ones sexual misdeeds were also taken into consideration. Gosden (1973) points out the rules of John Bamford's Society in Barton, Notts.

"That if any member shall have the venereal disease, or shall fall sick or lame occasioned by any unlawful exercise whatever - as wrestling, fighting, boxing, jumping etc., or through excess of drinking, he shall receive no benefit from the box"

.

Even during illness, the member would be visited to ensure he was not shamming.

Once accepted, the member would be expected to follow a strict set of rules (so beloved by the Victorian worker, who had very little power themselves, and saw 'rules' as a model of 'correctitude'.). Each member also had the chance to be elected onto the board of trustees (unpaid). This was seen as the pinnacle of respectfulness and as a reward for good dependable service to the society. To be elected as a 'key-holder' (steward) was the aspiration of many of its members; (this epitomised the 'trust' much desired as yet another notch in persons perceived respectfulness).

A member who remained in credit (never ill etc.) was also seen as an honourable man with high morals. From this one can easily surmise that membership of a friendly society, can allow a former non-entity of a worker to achieve within his class nearly all the concepts of self help, honourable recognition, and a place within their level of society, unattainable by any other means. Membership of a society can therefore be said to encourage the role of 'self-help' within a peer group. The behaviour of its members mirrored all that was seen as good, honest, respectable and forthright. It also showed that the work put into a friendly society by each member shaped the aspirations and forwardness of that friendly society.

Some aspiring members moved away from the local societies after the 1830s to join the newer 'affiliated societies'. These had a central hierarchy with many 'branches' in different towns. The advantage of this was that a member taken ill or even dying whilst away from home, could receive all due benefits from the local branch, which, would be reimbursed from central office (debiting that members local branch). Therefore 'journeymen' who were numerous at that time were quick to see the advantages of being able to receive benefits whilst away. This need being met, not by charity, or the 'poor rate' but as a result of their own endeavour, was again seen as a value ascribed to thrift and foresight.

The friendly society continued throughout the 19^th century as regards membership and benefits. By 1908 (Old Age Pensions Act) the need for friendly societies began to diminish, mainly due to the social and monetary 'reform' by the government. The introduction of an 'Old Age Pension' greatly relieved the need for friendly societies to pay out long term age related benefits. Many of the affiliated societies changed into more social activities, similar to the 'Masonic Lodges', (although at a lower social level). Gosden (1973) backs this up when he says: -

"It was not merely the coming of government old age pensions and national health insurance that led to the change in the character of friendly societies in the 20^th century. It was also the shortening of the working week, the introduction of annual holidays and the consequent widening in the opportunities for recreation and social activities open to working men which gradually reduced their importance".

What we can conclude from this essay falls into two parts. Firstly the worker with some (albeit small) percentage of his wage free from survival needs, feared sickness and the subsequent removal to the workhouse so much that he was virtually compelled to join a friendly society to allay that perceived fear. The sickness pay, death benefit and possibly a 'widows pension', would allay this anxiety. Secondly, we must be aware of the times, and ask whether the much espoused Victorian concept of self-help filtered downwards from the upper classes. The answer has to be yes, for the friendly society of this era was also a means of socialisation. It would allow the industrious to feel they were part of the British nation, contributing to its demands and expected norms of thrift, savings and the perception of being in part, independent of the need for state intervention in hard times.

In an age when class structures were achieved, rather than acquired, an honest trustworthy member of a friendly society must have seen himself above that class of worker, whose station in life was predetermined to fall into the only state net, the workhouse, or death alone in some garret, ending in a paupers grave, and his family then condemned to the workhouse.

REFERENCES.

Bannerman,J.(1996) Societies. (Penguin Press, London.)P. 41,

Cook, C. (1996) Modern British History (Longmans Press, London.)P. 208,

Gosden,P. (1973) Self-Help (In 19^th Century Britain).(Batsford Press.London) 112,20,

Hunt,E. (1981) British Labour History 1815-1914. (Weidenfeld, London)P. 44,

Hopkins,E (1995) Working Class Self Help. (UCL Press, London) P.9,13,32,

Ittmann,K.(1995)Gender & Family in Victorian England.(Macmillan,London) 3,113,

Mingay,G. (1976) Rural Life in Victorian England.(Alan Sutton, Stroud) P95

Neaves,D. (1991) Mutual Aid in Victorian Countryside.(Hull Univ.Press. Hull)P. 74,

Smiles,S (1859) Self Help (Murray Press, London)P.86,

Tingsten,H. (1972) Victoria and the Victorians, (Allen & Unwin, London)P. 213,

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Backstrom,P. Christian Socialism & Co-operation. (Croon-Helm, London 1974)

Bannerman,J. Societies. (Penguin Press, London.1996)

Cook, C. Modern British History. (Longmans Press, London. 1996)

Daunton,M. Progress and Poverty. (Oxford Press,London. 1995)

Gosden,P. Self-Help, (In 19^th Century Britain) (Batsford Press, London 1973)

Hunt,E. British Labour History 1815-1914. (Weidenfeld, London.1981)

Hopkins,E Working Class Self Help. (UCL Press, London.1995)

Inglis,B. Poverty & Industrial Revolution. (Hodder & Stoughton, London.1971)

Ittmann,K. Gender & Family in Victorian England. (Macmillan,London.1995)

Marsden,G Victorian Values. (Longman Press, London.1990)

Mingay,G. Rural Life in Victorian England (Alan Sutton, Stroud 1976)

Moore,C The Industrial Age. (Longmans Press, London. 1987)

Neaves,D. Mutual Aid in Victorian Countryside.(Hull Univ.Press. Hull.1991)

Smiles,S Self Help (Murray Press, London.1859)

Tingsten,H. Victoria and the Victorians, (Allen & Unwin, London.1972)