The history of poverty in the United Kingdom before 1970 was shaped by the complex forces of social, economic, and political change. Throughout the centuries—from the era of medieval serfdom to the age of the industrial working poor—poverty remained an entrenched challenge, persisting despite the continuous evolution of welfare systems and reform efforts.
Historical study of poverty in the medieval period (before 1600) relies on narrative sources, such as chronicles and manorial records, to track local hardship conditions.[1] Early accounts emphasized episodic crises—famines, plague, and warfare—which greatly influenced perceptions of poverty and the vulnerability of peasants and townsfolk. The social and economic difficulties before and after theBlack Death (c. 1348–1351) are especially well-documented, with chroniclers noting dramatic price fluctuations, shortages , and population vulnerability. During the medieval period, poverty was primarily interpreted a religious and moral framework. Catholicism emphasized sacrifice, and bestowed prestige on religious monks and friars who took vows of poverty.[2][3] Much poverty was linked to feudal obligations, leading to a widespread existence defined by subsistence living. The Church offered charity through its monasteries.[4]
A significant shift occurred with theDissolution of the monasteries (1536–1541) underKing Henry VIII. This act eliminated a major source of organized relief, resulting in a surge of visible poverty and vagrancy. In response to this crisis, the Tudor state began legislating to both control and assist the poor. This effort culminated in the pivotal ElizabethanPoor Relief Act 1601, which fundamentally changed social welfare. The Act emphasized local responsibility for the destitute. It introduced a crucial distinction between the "deserving" (those unable to work) and the "undeserving" (sturdy beggars and vagrants). As a result the burden of care was handled by parishes, funded by local property taxes known as poor rates.[5][6] By the 18th century, the parish relief system was breaking down. Parishes that provided more aid received more vagrants and they did not want them. Meanwhile, useful farm workers were leaving for the rapidly growing industrial cities.[7]
TheIndustrial Revolution (from the late 18th to the early 19th century) fundamentally altered the British economy, yet it simultaneously intensified poverty. This era was characterized by rapid urbanization, which resulted in the development of overcrowded slums, unsanitary living conditions, and precarious employment. Factory and agricultural workers typically earned modest wages, and the practice of child labor became pervasive.[8]. There has been a lively debate among scholars as to whether the industrial workers during he period 1750 to 1850 saw their real wages rise[9] or fall[10]
ThePoor Law Amendment Act 1834 fundamentally changed the system of relief, focusing on cost reduction and actively discouraging dependence on public aid. This was achieved by establishing theworkhouse system, where conditions were intentionally made harsh in order to deter their use. Workhouses were abolished in the early 20th century[11].
Throughout the 19th century, philanthropic initiatives and social reform movements began to target the reduction of poverty. Growing public concern over urban deprivation led to campaigns focused on public health through urban sanitation and clean water, housing reform, and free schooling.[12] Under Whig leadership Parliament began to intervene. TheFactory Acts, which slowly improved labor conditions, and largely ended child labour.[13]
The early 1900s exposed deep flaws in the Poor Law system. Groundbreaking social research byCharles Booth in London andSeebohm Rowntree in York demonstrated that poverty affected many working families, undermining the prevailing notion that destitution stemmed purely from personal shortcomings.[14]
Between 1906 and 1914, the Liberal government enactedtransformative welfare reforms. They ranged widely to include action regarding workers, schools, children, elderly, and farmers. These included establishing old-age pensions, creating labour exchanges to help the unemployed find work, and introducing national insurance schemes covering sickness and unemployment. These initiatives marked the first significant movement toward a modern welfare state.[15]
The depression of the 1930s brought severe economic hardship especially in the older industrial areas.[16].[17] Local relief authorities implemented the "Means Test" to determine eligibility for assistance. This intrusive assessment of household resources became deeply unpopular among struggling families and symbolized the harsh face of state welfare. Massive protests led to the abolition of the test in 1941, at a time when unemployment was disappearing due to wartime prosperity and the movement of most young men into service.[18]
World War II (1939–1945) dramatically expanded government involvement in citizens' lives. Wartime measures including rationing systems, mass evacuation programs, and employment regulations helped mitigate certain forms of deprivation. Beyond immediate relief, the war created momentum for substantial social reform.
TheBeveridge Report is a government report, published in November 1942, decisive in the founding of thewelfare state in the United Kingdom.[19] It was drafted by theLiberal economistWilliam Beveridge and proposed widespread reforms to the system of social welfare to address what it identified as "five giants on the road of reconstruction": Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. Published inthe midst of World War II, the report promised rewards for everyone's sacrifices. Overwhelmingly popular with the public, it formed the basis for the post-war reforms by the Labour Party ofClement Attlee known as the "welfare state." By 1950, Britain had embarked on a revolutionary transformation of its welfare system. It established theNational Health Service in 1948 and built a comprehensive social security framework. These changes dismantled the centuries-old Poor Law system and ushered in an entirely new approach to addressing poverty and social need.[20][21]
The "Welfare state and its income support programs, and aid to economically depressed industrial areas have been main concerns of British national politics since the 1950s.[22][23]
In the early-1950s, it was widely believed that poverty had been all but abolished from Britain, with only a few isolated pockets of deprivation still remaining. The statistical index of overall inequality was the lowest ever, and people assumed that meant that the bottom group was much smaller. (Actually, the top group was not as rich)[24] Indeed a 1950 study showed that only 1.5% of the survey population lived in poverty, compared with 18% in 1936. A leader inThe Times spoke positively of this "remarkable improvement – no less than the virtual abolition of the sheerest want." Over the subsequent two decades, new research byPeter Townsend and other sociologists challenged the earlier optimistic conclusion, leading to a "rediscovery" of poverty.[25] Various surveys and academic studies now estimated that about 4% to 12% of the population lived below the Supplementary Benefits' scales. Thus inPoverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security (1969), Professor A. B. Atkinson estimated 2 to 5 million Britons lived in poverty. When he included the 2.6 million people officially in receipt of Supplementary Benefits, the minimum proportion of the population living on or below the poverty line was estimated at at least 10%. Some 22% were at or near the poverty line.[26] In their 1965 study, "The Poor and the Poorest", Professors Peter Townsend andBrian Abel-Smith estimated 14% (7.5 million) were living in poverty. Furthermore, they estimated that the percentage of the population living in poverty had sharply increased from 8% to 14% since the mid-1950s.[27]
The continued existence of poverty in the 1960s was also characterised bydifferences in health between different social classes. In 1964-65, the incidence ofinfant deaths was more than half as much higher in the two lowest social classes than in the two highest social classes. In 1961-62, 28% of all men recorded at least one spell of sickness of four days or more. For the lowest social classes, however, 35% of men had experienced this, compared with 18% of men in the highest social classes.[28] There is evidence that in large families the height of children was less than that for the average, while families with three or more children were more likely to be inadequately nourished.[29]