Government

Public Poor Relief in Colonial North Carolina

BY ALAN D. WATSON^*

[Vol. 54 (1977), 347-363]

Although the study of poverty and poor relief in the British mainland possessions of North America has been confined principally to the northern and middle colonies, interest in the impoverished of society has recently been extended to the southern provinces.¹ In colonial North Carolina public poor relief constituted a continuous function of the Anglican parishes, the county courts, and the provincial assembly. Anglican religious attitudes and mercantilist theory provided an atmosphere in which relief for the poor was not only desirable but virtually mandatory, and much time, effort, and money was expended to ease the burdens of the needy.² Equally as important as the relief administered were the precedents established in theory and in practice during the colonial period which would govern society’s attitudes toward the poor and poor relief after the Revolution.³

Of course, public poor relief supplemented private compassion and care for the poor. Relief for the impoverished principally depended upon the solicitations of friends, neighbors, and particularly families. Non-Anglican religious groups, too, attempted to protect the needy of their sects. The Moravians in their orderly, communal fashion provided for the unfortunate in Wachovia, and the Quakers in Pasquotank County, at least, attempted to keep their “poor from being Chargable to the Public.”⁴ Still, numerous individuals benefited from public support which emanated from the governmental units of the colony.

For purposes of identifying the impoverished, the colonials utilized a broad definition of the poor. Included were not only the indigent but also the aged, widowed, orphaned, insane, sick, and disabled, without any careful differentiation. The determining factor in defining the poor was need. The financial effects of adverse conditions determined poverty. A distinction was drawn, however, between the poor deemed worthy of charitable support and rogues and vagabonds—persons who had fallen upon hard times but lived an immoral life and refused to apply themselves diligently to an occupation.⁵ Thus, the only extant poor law of eighteenth-century colonial North Carolina was directed primarily against “divers idle and disorderly Persons, having no visible Estate or Employments,” and later defined as “Rogues or Vagabonds.” Such dissolute persons were “to be conveyed and whipt” from constable to constable until returned to their county of original residence where they were directed to find an honest trade or be bound in servitude for one year. The “poor,” however, became wards of the parishes which were expected to sustain them.⁶

In England the parish assumed primary responsibility for the care of the poor. The institution and related societal attitudes pertaining to poor relief were transplanted to Virginia where the creation of parishes often antedated the appearance of counties. The eventual establishment of the Anglican church in North Carolina together with the early Virginia orientation of the colony resulted in the appearance of parishes in the province whose taxes on the inhabitants within their bounds supported a variety of public endeavors such as paying bounties on animal scalps, securing weights and measures, processioning lands, and providing poor relief.⁷ Charitable services were available to all and were largely underwritten by the parish levies. The nature of the activities and taxation thus rendered the parish essentially a public institution which in conjunction with the county and provincial governments attempted to allay the poverty and misery of the unfortunate in the colony. Of course, the Anglican establishment was tenuous in North Carolina, but the extant records of two parishes reveal a concerted poor-relief function as it operated in the province.

The parish records show that relatively few individuals depended upon charity dispensed by the Anglican vestries. St. Paul’s Parish in Chowan County aided 134 individuals between 1712 and 1775; St. John’s Parish in Carteret County, 41 between 1742 and 1775.⁸ An examination of those receiving assistance reveals a preponderance of men, followed by women, children, and women with children. In the two parishes men constituted approximately 40 percent of the needy; women, 30 percent; children, 20 percent; and women with children, 10 percent. Compared to nineteenth-century America, in which women and children dominated relief roles because they were less likely to be corrupted by or to take advantage of charity, the prevalence of men indicated a more relaxed and complaisant attitude exhibited by colonials toward relief.⁹

Procedures for recognizing the needs of the poor were varied and informal. The indigent sometimes sought relief from the vestry as did Thomas Hobbs who was allowed 15 shillings per month in St. Paul’s in 1727 while the churchwardens investigated the validity of his request. Ministers occasionally initiated action for charitable support. The Reverend Daniel Earl personally met the immediate needs of Judith Mainer and her two children; later he submitted an account of his expenses to the vestry for reimbursement.¹⁰ Generally, friends, relatives, or churchwardens cared for the indigent until the vestry could decide how best to care for them.

Many of the recipients of relief were not residents of the parishes. St. Paul’s paid for transporting Mary Smith and her child “out of the parish”; disbursed money to John Romburg for making a coffin for “a traveler”; paid a churchwarden for maintaining and burying Margaret, a woman left by Captain Poll[ock?]; and assumed charges for boarding, doctor’s care, and funeral expenses of a sailor who died at John Astie’s home. St. John’s reimbursed Daniel Rees for keeping John Rine, a sick person “who happened to fall in here.”¹¹

Some of the nonresidents came from neighboring parishes. St. Paul’s paid Thomas Eccleston £5 for conveying Benjamin Smith to a churchwarden in Berkeley Parish in Perquimans County.¹² St. John’s accepted the responsibility of boarding William Smith in 1748, after which he presumably moved to Onslow County. Two years later Smith returned to Carteret to seek further support. The parish gave him two shirts but determined that he lived in Onslow “and of right belongs there.” Thus, the vestry contracted with Newell Bell to transport Smith to Onslow, landing him “at Cedar Point on the east side of New River or at a plantation formerly belonging to Edward Howard.”¹³ And on two occasions St. John’s rendered assistance to women and their children who resided permanently in Craven County.¹⁴

Relief was also granted to those from beyond the bounds of North Carolina. St. John’s aided Ann Garrey and her child who had come to Carteret County from New England¹⁵ and in 1750 attempted to find Joseph Holmes return passage to the same region. If successful in locating a ship bound for New England, the vestry intended to provide Holmes with a warm jacket and felt hat. Holmes, however, remained in Carteret for the next five years, supported by the parish until his death in 1755.¹⁶

The parishes supported a variety of poor. Relief was not confined to the sick and dying. In St. Paul’s 37 percent of the recipients of aid needed immediate medical attention or were listed for funeral charges; in St. John’s, 20 percent. Sarah Rutter’s daughter was insane; John Parrish’s son and Martha Clenny, an orphan, were lame.¹⁷ Most of the remainder of the poor were elderly, impoverished, or orphaned.

Orphaned children were supported until they could be apprenticed by the county courts. While death usually occasioned orphanage, John Dickson deserted his family when he “ran away out of the parish,” and Christopher West left his children destitute upon failing to return from the “expedition to Ohio” in 1755.¹⁸ Orphans usually remained with their mothers until apprenticed; otherwise, the parish took care to find an appropriate home for them during the interim period. Daniel Linyard and his wife left three girls, the oldest in a “declining state of health.” Linyard’s wife, before her death, asked that the middle child be bound to John Shackleford, Sr., and the vestry approved. Richard Rustell agreed to take the youngest girl, and the vestry ordered the churchwardens to find “some careful person” to nurse the oldest girl.¹⁹

Generally, appropriations for orphans and mothers with children were short-lived. Most did not remain on the parish rolls for more than two years. John Gooding, orphan of James Gooding, along with the child of Christopher West, who received assistance for four and five years respectively, represented the exceptions.²⁰ When seeking to apprentice children, parishes often paid a bonus to prospective masters to encourage them to undertake the responsibility. St. Paul’s offered Thomas Marlow £55 currency for his claims for expenses in keeping Judah Shears, provided that he would keep the orphan until legal majority and teach him to read, write, and “get his living.”²¹

Although families undoubtedly supplied most of the care and financial aid for the poor, poverty occasionally prevented the extension of familial support. Under such circumstances the parish offered aid. Sarah Rutter sought help for her “distracted” daughter; John Parrish, for his crippled son. Henry Clay had privately contracted to support his aged mother, Mary Havit, but poverty compelled him to seek the assistance of the parish. St. Paul’s agreed to help and annually disbursed moneys to Clay.²² On the other hand, Joseph Roads, who was financially able to support his father, refused to do so and was sued by the parish. This contrasted starkly with the situation of Joseph Alphin in St. John’s, who was unable to keep his father in the family household but bore some of the expense of boarding him with another in the parish.²³

Parishes preferred to allow the poor to continue to maintain their households and live independent lives whenever possible. Psychologically, the practice benefited the indigent; financially, it benefited the parish. Often the poor received food, clothing, medical care, and money while residing in their homes. In some instances a supervisor was appointed to disburse the funds; on other occasions money was given to the needy to spend at their discretion. In 1775 Elizabeth Thompson received 1½ yards of cotton cloth, 5½ bushels of meal, 50 pounds of flour, and 2 gallons of molasses. The vestry also paid for putting her under a “course of physic.”²⁴ William Tibison and his sister Sarah jointly received 2 bushels of meal and 95 pounds of pork. In addition, William was the beneficiary of 3½ yards of checks and Sarah of 30 pounds of bread and 10 pounds of flour.²⁵ Another Elizabeth Thompson, attempting to maintain her independent life-style, prevailed upon the vestry to rent a house for her, but after a year of declining health she was forced to live with others.²⁶

When poverty mandated care outside the home, the poor were supported in community households rather than in public institutions. This approach reflected the prevailing colonial attitude that poverty was a sufficient affliction without compounding the difficulty by exclusion or incarceration. Moreover, institutionalization—almshouses or workhouses—contained no inherent advantages and bestowed no special benefits.²⁷

The duties of boarding the poor diffused among many individuals and families in order to spread the burden. In St. Paul’s 114 of the 134 recipients of aid required boarding; in St. John’s, 30 of 41. Generally, those who boarded the needy maintained only one person and ended their responsibility with the departure or demise of the indigent. In St. Paul’s 150 individuals or families maintained the 114 persons who needed such assistance. Rarely did more than one of the poor reside with a family, and that only by request of the indigent or by virtue of a churchwarden’s immediate responsibility for the poor. Only 24 (16 percent) kept more than 1 of the needy. Four of the 24 were men who had contracted to keep all of the poor in the parish for brief periods of time. Of the remaining 20, only 5 kept more than 2 indigents. In St. John’s 32 persons kept the 30 boarders. A minimum of 5 and perhaps as many as 9 kept more than 1 indigent, but none maintained more than 2 individuals.

Most of the households in which the needy were kept were fully constituted families headed by men. Only 20 of the 150 heads of such households in St. Paul’s were females, and half of the needy whom they supported were women. In St. John’s 6 of the 32 persons were females; again, about half of their boarders were women. Rarely did those who boarded the poor need assistance themselves in later years. William Weston in St. Paul’s and Eve Lewis, widow, in St. John’s represented the exceptions.²⁸ Apparently the poor were boarded and sustained by those of sufficient means and family in later years to avoid becoming charges on the parishes.

Most of the poor who were boarded found a stable family atmosphere in which to reside, but some were shunted from one home to another with alarming frequency. Between 1765 and 1772 at least 11 persons kept Moses Welwood; and 16 persons boarded with Rachel Purvine from 1741 to her death in 1753.²⁹ Fortunately, the circumstances of Welwood and Purvine were exceptional. Most of the poor who received board for lengthy periods virtually became members of the families with whom they stayed. Between 1736 and 1748, for example, Christian Newton remained with Robert Fullerton. And she necessitated constant attention, as attested by the efforts of Dr. Abraham Blacknall who often administered to her.³⁰ Eve Lewis in St. John’s was maintained by Valentine Wallis from 1756 to 1762, after which Henry Hatchel cared for her until her death in 1770 or 1771.³¹ During most of Jane Prince’s fourteen years of relief on the same parish William Dennis and David Lewis shared the duties of supporting her.³²

Although few of the poor remained on relief for more than four years, the aid dispensed by vestries in those instances revealed the extensive care bestowed on them. St. Paul’s first aided Rachel Purvine in 1740 when Richard Bond, churchwarden, expended 40 shillings on his own initiative to help that “poor woman in great want of assistance from the parish.” In 1744 the vestry ordered Purvine taken to Cosander Springs, presumably a health spa, and by 1747 had purchased shifts, gowns, caps of fine linen, and shoes for her.³³ Few of the parish accounts are as detailed as that for Robert Alphin, who was placed on relief in St. John’s in 1755. At that time the parish paid Elizabeth Hinton for curing his hand. Later that year it purchased 2¾ yards of bearskin, 3½ yards of checks, 8 yards of osnaburg, 2 stick twists, 2 dozen buttons, a linen handkerchief, and a pair of shoes for Alphin. And just before Alphin’s death the parish recorded expenditures for 7 yards of osnaburg, 2½ yards of cloth, 1 dozen buttons, a pair of stockings, and a worsted cap.³⁴

Occasionally a parish attempted to centralize care for the poor by contracting with an individual to take charge of all the indigents within the parish bounds. In May, 1742, the churchwardens of St. Paul’s were ordered to bring all the poor of the parish to the next vestry meeting at which time any person who was willing to board the poor should appear to arrange financial terms for the service. Thomas Walton kept the poor for six months; Orlando Champion housed most of them for the following six months. Nathaniel Hocutt succeeded Champion but served only a short time, after which the needy were again separated and placed in different households. The only other indication that an individual had contracted to care for the indigent was a payment by St. Paul’s in 1774 to Nathaniel Jones for maintaining several of the poor of the parish.³⁵ Selected individuals also provided services for the poor. For a time the vestry of St. Paul’s turned to Thomas Walton to procure shoes for all the needy, and in 1772 and 1773 Dr. Samuel Dickinson provided medical care for the poor in St. Paul’s Parish.³⁶ Otherwise, aid was usually rendered by the parish on an individual, selective basis.

Where possible, the parish attempted to curtail expenses and recoup moneys expended for the poor. St. Paul’s permitted William Walton to keep Mary Floyd and allowed Susana Trotman to maintain her own illegitimate daughter until others were willing to keep them “for less money.” Elizabeth Knight was granted £1 5s.0d. per month for support of her daughter and granddaughter until someone proved desirous of keeping them for less, and in 1775 James Knight took the child for £6 per year.³⁷ The parish gladly accepted the offer of Robert Lassiter to board John and Sarah Marks at the exceedingly small sum of £4 annually because former churchwardens were maintaining the couple at “an extravagant rate.”³⁸

If an indigent possessed or left a small estate, the parish availed itself of the assets for recompense. After Joseph Holmes was granted relief by St. John’s, he notified the vestry that David Lewis retained some of his belongings. The vestry then ordered one of the county magistrates to settle with Lewis, and, if not satisfied, to sue him.³⁹ Churchwardens in the same parish sold at public vendue the estates of Eve Lewis and John Chew, the latter producing a meager £3 19s.4d.⁴⁰ When the estate of a deceased indigent was very small, an informal transfer of the items was made to the person who had kept the poor. In St. John’s, Anthony Frazier at his death left £1 2s.l0d. which was appropriated for burial expenses. In St. Paul’s, Stephen Brown’s 10 shillings and pair of trousers valued at £0 3s.9d. were used to offset his funeral charges.⁴¹

Parishes sought compensation from other responsible persons or agencies for some of the indigent cases. St. Paul’s sued William Branch for money expended for the maintenance of his servant, Elizabeth Harris, and St. John’s called upon William Yates for expenses in keeping his bond servant.⁴² Fathers of legitimate and, when known, illegitimate children were legally responsible for the support of their offspring.⁴³ And on two occasions St. John’s cared for women and their children who legally resided in Craven County. Mary Harkill was pregnant and while in Carteret delivered a child. She and the baby necessitated nursing and lodging for five months. In 1772 the churchwardens were instructed to seek recompense from Christ Church Parish in Craven; by 1775 they were charged to sue Christ Church Parish for the money.⁴⁴

The supervision of orphans constituted the principal contribution of the county governments to public poor relief. Orphans, as minors, represented an element of the poor who depended upon the public for protection, support, and care until they attained legal majority. Those with sufficient estates were placed with guardians who educated and provided for the children “according to their Rank & degree.” The less fortunate, including illegitimate children, were apprenticed to learn a handicraft or trade.⁴⁵ Although legislation after 1755 granted the district superior courts of the colony concurrent jurisdiction with the county courts in orphanage matters, in practice the latter continued to dominate such affairs.⁴⁶

A survey of the records of eight counties representing different geographic areas of the province reveals the extensive nature of orphanage. As shown in Table 1, the courts in Pasquotank, Edgecombe, and Chowan directed the care of an average of more than fifteen orphans per year. In all but Rowan children requiring guardianship outnumbered those who were apprenticed. While apprenticeship entailed the appointment of masters, subsequent protection of the orphans from abuse, and the enforcement of indentures obligating masters to educate and train their apprentices in suitable occupations, guardianship placed greater responsibility upon the courts. Not only the orphans but also their estates demanded protection. Accompanying the appointment of guardians was the designation of bonded securities to guarantee the substance of the estates. Thereafter, guardians were required to submit annual reports of the financial affairs of the estates. Nevertheless, mismanagement of the estates of orphans was a constant concern of every county court.⁴⁷

Many factors determined the appointment of masters and guardians. Availability, willingness, and integrity were essential. Other considerations included the age and sex of the children. Justices often attempted to apprentice boys and girls of similar age and circumstance to the same master or to apprentice orphans to masters who had children of the same sex and proximate age in order to provide appropriate companionship for the orphans. When appointing guardians, courts attempted to leave the orphans with their mothers. Otherwise, the justices relied upon relatives or friends of the children. At age fourteen or older orphans were allowed to nominate guardians of their choice, subject to the approval of the court.⁴⁸ This privilege was also extended to apprentices on several occasions, sometimes to children as young as seven to nine years of age.⁴⁹

Many served as masters or guardians, shown by Table 1, as the courts attempted to spread the responsibility. Only in Cumberland County did masters and guardians keep an average of more than two children. Rarely were five or more children placed in the same household. Such instances usually involved mothers who were appointed guardians of their own children. These, and cases in which husbands and wives were appointed jointly as masters or guardians, comprised the majority of occasions in which women served in such capacity. Altogether, women represented 10 percent of the total number of masters and guardians.

Courts seldom requested masters or guardians to keep children from different family units. Only 117 (13 percent) maintained orphans from two or more families. Six involved four different family units, and Aquila Sugg, justice of the peace and member of the provincial assembly from Edgecombe County, had the distinction of being the only individual in the eight counties under investigation to keep children from five families.⁵⁰

The counties expended little money directly to assist the poor. Justices preferred that the parishes undertake such expenses according to the directives of the law. Upon finding that no one would accept as an apprentice Martha Clenny, who was an orphan, crippled, and without estate, the Chowan court remanded her to the care of the churchwardens of St. Paul’s Parish.⁵¹ In 1771 the Pasquotank court notified the governor, council, and assembly that there had not been a vestry in the county for several years and that the poor suffered “greatly for Want of Assistance.”⁵² The assembly responded quickly with legislation directing the inhabitants of Pasquotank to elect a vestry and ordering the imposition of a 6 pence tax to raise revenue for support of the poor. In case of the failure of the vestry to convene, the county court was permitted to levy the tax and use the proceeds to sustain the needy.⁵³

When counties extended direct financial aid to the poor, most of the funds were granted to the sick. Between 1758 and 1774 Chowan, Craven, and New Hanover recorded expenditures for those who had been stricken with smallpox, the disease that occasioned most of the outlays.⁵⁴ Craven also bought supplies for vessels which were riding quarantine off New Bern; and Rowan, with a relatively weak Anglican establishment, often proffered small sums to the sick and needy in St. Luke’s Parish.⁵⁵

The provincial government eased the burden of the poor by permitting them to secure exemptions from public taxes (county, parish, and provincial) and public services (working on the roads and attending musters). An exemption was obtained by petitioning the county court, which ordered the county clerk to prepare a certificate to the General Assembly requesting the discharge. One of the representatives from the county then submitted the certificate to the assembly for approbation.

An applicant for exemption was rarely denied by the county court. Of 385 petitions in 15 counties, only 4 were rejected.⁵⁶ The assembly, too, gave almost perfunctory approval to actions of the county justices, though the increasing number of petitions toward the end of the colonial period evoked a directive from the legislature in 1773 “that in all future Certificates from the Inferior Courts of this Province to this House, requiring an Exemption from Public Taxes, that the Circumstances of disability for which Exception is required, shall be particularly expressed therein.”⁵⁷ The implication that the assembly would scrutinize more closely exemption petitions little deterred petitioners or county courts, however, as the magistrates continued to approve numerous requests on the eve of the Revolution.

Table 2 contains a compilation of the successful requests to various county courts for exemptions. Included in the figures are a small number of petitions for exemption solely from public services, principally road work, which could be granted by the county courts without the approval of the assembly. The exact number of those seeking exemptions only from public services could not be ascertained because the wording of some petitions is ambiguous. However, such petitions constituted a minimum of 5 percent and a maximum, perhaps, of 10 percent of all exemption requests. The total also includes temporary exemptions such as that of Aaron Cox from road work during his illness and those of Thomas Gillikin and Joseph Sweeney from their tax payments for one and three years respectively.⁵⁸ At least two of the successful petitioners were free black males, and four were females.⁵⁹

The justification for exemptions admits further insight into the nature of poverty in the colony. Exemptions were justified principally by age or by mental or physical disability. Age was the predominant factor. Once a man reached sixty and poverty (probably caused by infirmity) attended his condition, he could seek exemption. John Hicks of Chowan petitioned that he was “advanced to the age of Sixty Six Years, [was] very infirm & Poor[,] and unable to labour,” and requested exemption from taxes. New Hanover accepted Thomas Skinner’s petition, “he appearing to be upwards of Sixty Years of Age”; and Onslow justices received favorably the petitions of John Berkenpine and Jacob Biddle, who were “Very Ancient.”⁶⁰

Although some petitioners used terms such as “very old,” “stricken in years,” and “ancient” to denote advanced age, many like Hicks and Skinner listed their ages or approximations of their ages. Seventeen petitioners were sixty or above, eleven in their seventies, two about eighty, and James Salter of Carteret was ninety.⁶¹ Average life expectancy before the Revolution was short, to be sure, but some obviously lived to advanced ages.

The other principal category of exemptions consisted of the mentally and physically disabled. Ephraim Chadwick of Carteret told the court that his son “was in a Deplorable Condition by the Loss of his Reason and by severall other Infirmaties”; and John Granade reported that his son was “a person very Lame and Infirm and much Troubled with Fits...”⁶² Mental illness appeared to be relatively rare, however, and cases of exemptions involving physical conditions far outweighed those of mental disorders. Hugh Rigby of Craven petitioned “on Account of the loss of his Eye Sight and infirmities and Poverty.” Five others also listed partial or total blindness as reason for exemption.⁶³ A heartrending summation of physical disability can be seen in the six petitions to the Rowan County court in 1766: William and James Story were “Unable to help them Selves by having No Use of their Limbs”; Henry Evans and Alexander Hughes were deaf and dumb; John Loss had lost the sight in one eye and had only partial vision in the other; and Frederick Goss, “Extreamly helpless,” was utterly unable to do the least work.⁶⁴

For impoverished inhabitants of the province who were imprisoned because they were unable to meet the demands of their creditors, the colony provided a remedy via legislation for the relief of “poor debtors, as to the imprisonment of their Persons.” The statute, passed in 1749, permitted imprisoned debtors to be discharged from the responsibility of their debts and to obtain their freedom if they possessed an estate worth less than 40 shillings exclusive of wearing apparel, working tools, and arms for militia musters. Those sued for debt but worth more than 40 shillings also had the opportunity to escape incarceration by delivering their estates in trust to their creditors. The legal process involved petitioning the county court (or two justices of the county between quarterly sessions), producing an account of the estate, and assigning the effects to the creditor. The debtor could not be arrested thereafter for the debt, but the judgment remained in force, and execution could be obtained on the estate if desired by the creditor.⁶⁵

The 1749 statute was amended in 1762 to correct a defect in the application of the earlier law. According to the former legislation, debtors could not secure relief unless creditors were summoned to court to hear the pleas of the debtors and avail themselves of the opportunity to register objections. However, many creditors lived outside the colony, which rendered legal notice and appearance in court difficult and often thwarted the intent of the law. Thus, after 1762, the courts were allowed to summon personal representatives of creditors, who held powers of attorney, when creditors could not be contacted. Subsequent legislation in 1773 permitted any one judge of the superior courts in the province or any two county magistrates of the county courts to extend relief to insolvent debtors. Moreover, to assist debtors whose creditors could not be located and had no personal representatives in the province, the law permitted the debtors to give legal notice to the attorneys who prosecuted the suits that the debtors intended to seek insolvent debtor status.⁶⁶

Examination of the court minutes of 11 counties produced only 54 petitions by persons seeking relief because of insolvency. Two were denied and 1 appealed to superior court.⁶⁷ Two of the successful petitioners were women, Esther Robinson of Orange County and Elizabeth Guy of New Hanover County.⁶⁸ No more than 7 of the petitions indicated the submission of a schedule of the estate for creditors, which implies that the petitioners were worth more than 40 shillings but were unable to meet their outstanding obligations. Richard Connon, imprisoned at the suit of Charles Smith, produced an estate of only £2 18s.4d. His belongings included an “old Flock Bed,” 1 blanket, 1 “old Bason,” 4 plates, 1 “old” spinning wheel, 7 pounds of wool, 1 punch bowl, 2 flag mats, 1 “old” frying pan, 2 knives, 2 forks, and 1 “old” pail. William Shepheard’s assets of £7 13s.0d. comprised small sums of money due from five individuals, 3 acres of wheat and rye, 1 sow and 4 pigs, 1 large iron pot, 1 bed and furniture, and 10 bushels of corn.⁶⁹ Presumably the other petitioners were worth less than 40 shillings, as represented by Jacob Davis of New Hanover County who took

benefit of the Act made for the relief of poor and Insolvent Debtors by Swearing that he is not worth 40/ Sterling in any worldly substances whatever, except his wearing Apparel, His working Tools, & Arms for Muster and was thereupon Ordered to be discharg’d.⁷⁰

Table 3 shows that petitions by insolvents were concentrated in Craven, Rowan, and Orange counties. Sixty percent of the pleas emanated from those counties which, of course, were among the most populous in the colony.⁷¹ Few found it necessary or desirable to take advantage of the legislation for debtors during the decade succeeding the passage of the law. Then 6 petitions appeared in 1759, followed by 20 petitions in the years from 1763 through 1766, a possible reflection of recessionary economic conditions after the French and Indian War. Altogether, insolvency petitions from the 14 counties averaged 2 per year. The figures, however unrepresentative they may be, hardly point to a poverty-stricken populace. Either North Carolinians conducted their finances with admirable restraint, or, more probably, creditors failed to foreclose on debtors.⁷²

The colony also aided the poor by awarding grants or pensions to men who suffered disability in military service and to families of men who died in the service of the colony. Robert Campbell, who served under the command of Hugh Waddell in the French and Indian War, was wounded and scalped. Disabled by the injuries, he desired to go to Europe to live with relatives, and the province granted him £50 proclamation for that purpose. Susanah Regan, widow of Gabriel Regan who was killed in the expedition against Fort Duquesne in the same war, was allowed £20 proclamation by the colony in 1760.⁷³

The casualities of the Battle of Alamance in 1771, in which Gov. William Tryon’s forces defeated the Regulators, also occasioned the disbursement of public moneys to support widows of those killed in the engagement and those who were disabled in battle. Under Tryon’s command nine were killed and sixty wounded. Widows began petitioning the assembly in November, 1771. Faithy Smith was “a very poor and distressed Widow with an Infant at her Breast” and in her “low weakly Condition was likely to become Chargeable to the Parish.”⁷⁴ Ann Bryan was left with “Six Small Children in Distressed Circumstances.”⁷⁵ Ann Ferguson and Elizabeth Harper tendered similar petitions. The legislature responded with grants of £100 to £150 which were to be placed in the hands of trustees to buy slaves for the widows and their children.⁷⁶ Fearnought Beaseley, dependent upon her son who died at Alamance, received an annual stipend of £10 for support.⁷⁷

Almost half of those wounded at Alamance received public assistance. They merited aid because they incurred crippling injuries which rendered them unable to work. Thomas Caressy of Carteret County stated that he had

Received three wounds: one throu his Belly: & one throu Each arm; and in his Right arm the Bulet is Lodged Between the Bones; so that it Can not Be Cutt out; which wounds has Entirely Deprived him from Doing any thing for a Livelyhood; & he has no Estate To Live on.⁷⁸

Thomas Bryant of Orange County sustained five wounds, one of which “rendered him intirely unable to Labor for a Livelihood, being extremely Weak and infirm with it.”⁷⁹ Caressy and Bryant exemplified the situation of at least twenty-three men who were given pensions ranging from £10 to £25 proclamation annually.⁸⁰ Robert Hamilton and Ensign William Peyton obtained grants of £20 and £100 proclamation respectively.⁸¹

Those who received pensions had to obtain yearly certification of their infirm condition from their respective county courts in order to remain eligible for their stipends. The court crisis of 1773, during which the county courts did not convene for approximately a year, threatened to interrupt payments. Thus, the assembly permitted the disabled to seek certificates of their disability from any three justices of the peace in their respective counties.⁸² The court records indicate that few remained on the bounty of the colony for an extended period. Only four of at least seven wounded from Craven and two of three from Carteret continued to receive payments.⁸³ Death or recuperation must have absolved the province from further responsibility.

In sum, the poor were not neglected in colonial North Carolina. Although the province lacked the extended and sophisticated system of poor relief provided by twentieth-century government, a variety of indigents benefited directly or indirectly from public support. Colonial North Carolina recognized a public responsibility to the various poor and acted upon that obligation within the confines of limited experience and restricted funds.

Footnotes

^* Dr. Watson is associate professor, Department of History, University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

¹ See David M. Schneider, The History of Public Welfare in New York, 1609-1866 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938); James Leiby, Charity and Corrections in New Jersey (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1967); Raymond A. Mohl, “Poverty in Early America, A Reappraisal: The Case of Eighteenth-Century New York City,” New York History, L (January, 1969), 5-27; Allan Kulikoff, “The Progress of Inequality in Revolutionary Boston,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXVIII (July, 1971), 375-412; Gary B. Nash, “Poverty and Poor Relief in Pre-Revolutionary Philadelphia,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXIII (January, 1976), 3-30; Virginia Bernhard, “Poverty and the Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXV (April, 1977), 141-155, hereinafter cited as Bernhard, “Poverty and Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Regarding North Carolina, Roy M. Brown, Public Poor Relief in North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1928), 10-25, provides only a brief, superficial treatment of provincial legislation relating to poor relief and the activities of St. Paul’s Parish designed to help the needy in the early eighteenth century.

² David J. Rothman, The Discovery of Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 3-29, hereinafter cited as Rothman, Discovery of Asylum.

³ See Arthur E. Fink, “Changing Philosophies and Practices in North Carolina Orphanages,” North Carolina Historical Review, XLVIII (October, 1971), 333-358; Guion Griffis Johnson, Ante-Bellum North Carolina: A Social History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1937), 683-716.

⁴ Adelaide L. Fries and others (eds.), Records of the Moravians in North Carolina (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission, 11 volumes, 1922-1969), I, II, passim; “An Apology” by Thomas Newby, Thomas Nicholson, Joseph White, and Joseph Robinson, c. 1757, in Pasquotank County Slave Papers, 1734-1860, Archives, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. See also Sydney V. James, A People among Peoples: Quaker Benevolence in Eighteenth-Century America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963).

⁵ Rothman, Discovery of Asylum, 4-5, 20-25.

⁶ Walter Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston and Goldsboro: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes, numbered XI-XXVI, 1895-1906), XXIII, 435-437, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. The provincial assembly frequently referred to large numbers of idle, disorderly, and dissolute persons in the colony, and even directed legislation specifically at such individuals in 1766, but the county courts rarely evidenced concern about these rogues and vagrants. Clark, State Records, XXIII, 746-747; Minutes of the Chowan County Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, July, 1755, State Archives. These and similar minutes of other county courts will be hereinafter cited as Court Minutes. See also Tyrrell Court Minutes, March, 1761; New Hanover Court Minutes, October, 1769; Onslow Court Minutes, October, 1771, January, 1772; Rowan Court Minutes, August, 1774.

⁷ Bernhard, “Poverty and the Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” passim; John M. Garland, “The Nonecclesiastical Activities of an English and a North Carolina Parish: A Comparative Study,” North Carolina Historical Review, L (January, 1973), 35-44, hereinafter cited as Garland, “Nonecclesiastical Activities of an English and a North Carolina Parish.”

⁸ Records of the Proceedings of the Vestry of St. Paul’s Church, Edenton, North Carolina, 1701-1841, typewritten copy, State Archives, hereinafter cited as St. Paul’s Parish Minutes; Vestry Book, St. John’s Parish, Beaufort, 1742-1843, Carteret County Records, State Archives, hereinafter cited as St. John’s Parish Minutes. The number 41 in St. John’s Parish includes one family unit, the Joshua Potter family. St. John’s Parish Minutes, Easter Monday, 1774.

⁹ Rothman, Discovery of Asylum, 34. The percentages are similar to those for the Virginia parishes of St. Paul and Blisland. Rothman, Discovery of Asylum, 34.

¹⁰ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, July 23, 1727; January 26, July 28, 1767. For a brief account of poor relief in St. Paul’s Parish from 1701 to 1712 and a comparison of relief provided by that parish and Swainswick Parish, Somersetshire, England, during the same period, see Garland, “Nonecclesiastical Activities of an English and a North Carolina Parish,” 35-44.

¹¹ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, October 28, 1765; September 25, 1756; May 10, 1755; May 28, 1753; St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 8,1751.

¹² St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, September 19, 1769.

¹³ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 11, 1748; July 24, 1750.

¹⁴ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 20, 1772; Easter Monday, 1774; April 17, 1775.

¹⁵ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 15, June 5, 1754; September ?, 1755; April 2, 1756.

¹⁶ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 17, June 5, July 24, 1750; April 8, 1751; March 30, April 28, June ?, 1752; June 6, 1753; April 15, May 10, 1754; September ?, 1755.

¹⁷ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, daughter of Sarah Rutter, April 15, 1754; July 5, 1755; September 25, 1756; October 20, 1760; son of John Parrish, August 24, 1752; May 10, 1754; July 5, 1755; May 7, 1757; July 29, 1758; October 20, 1760; Martha Clenny, November 17, 1759.

¹⁸ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, September 11, 1742; May 10, June 17, 1755; July 23, September 25, 1756; January 20, May 7, 1757; March 11, 1758; October 20, 1760.

¹⁹ St. John’s Parish Minutes, May 16, 1749.

²⁰ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, January 27, 1766; June 17, 1755; October 20, 1760.

²¹ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 3, August 21, 1749. See also St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, January 26, 1767; June 20, 1770.

²² Chowan Court Minutes, July, 1748; St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 3, August 2, 1749; June 5, 1750; September 25, 1756.

²³ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, September 6, 1758; ?, 1759; April 10, 1760; March 23, 1761; May 20, 1762; April ?, 1765; St. John’s Parish Minutes, August 9, 1755; April 24, 1756; January 20, May 7, 1757; January 7, March 11, July 28, 1758; September ?, 1759. See also Job Meadows, St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, April 20, 1772; April 24, 1773; Easter Monday, 1774; April 17, 1775; May 21, June 19, 1776.

²⁴ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, October 17, 1775.

²⁵ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, October 17, 1775.

²⁶ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, March 24, 1744; ?, 1745. See also Jesse Lasseter, St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 7, 1775.

²⁷ Rothman, Discovery of Asylum, 25-31.

²⁸ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, July 23, 1727; March 29, 1735; June 1, August 19, 1736; April 11, 1737; July 1, 1738; April 23, 1739; May 10, 1740; St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 11, 1748; April 2, 1756; April 11, 1757; June 3(?), 1758; April 16, 1759; April 10, 1760; May 23, 1761; May 20, September ?, 1762; April ?, 1765; March 1, 1766; May 20, 1767; April 4, 1768; March 27, 1769; May 1, 1770; April 1, 1771; April 20, 1772. For agreement, see Rothman, Discovery of Asylum, 33.

²⁹ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, April 23, October 29, 1765; January 27, October 27, 1766; January 26, May 23, July 28, October 27, 1767; January 25, April 30, 1768; April 29, 1769; March 21, April 28, June 20, 1770; April 21, 1771; June 17, 1772; August 8, 1741; April 10, June 12, 1742; June 4, 1743; July 26, 1744; March 21, April 20, May 27, 1747; June 13, 1748; May 3, August 2, 1749; June 5, 1750; January 17, 1751; September 25, 1756.

³⁰ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, March 25, 1734; June 1, 1736; July 22, 1738; April 18, 1741; April 15, July 19, 1745; April 20, 1747; June 13, 1748.

³¹ See n. 28.

³² St. John’s Parish Minutes, June 3(?), 1758; April 10, 1760; March 23, 1761; May 20, September ?, 1762; April ?, 1765; May 1, 1766; May 20, 1767; April 4, 1768; March 27, 1769; May 1, 1770; April 1, 1771. When directing the board of the poor in community households, parishes occasionally promised additional funds if the needy became ill, and in the case of John Roads, Sr., increased the rate of monthly compensation in the winter months of the year. St. John’s Parish Minutes, March 23, 1761; September ?, 1762; St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, ?, 1759.

³³ See n. 29.

³⁴ See n. 23. Also, see account of Jean Parker, St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 10, 1755.

³⁵ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 15, June 12, December 15, 1742; June 4, 1743; August 20, 1774. For similar conclusions, see Rothman, Disccwery of Asylum, 32.

³⁶ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, April 10, 1742; June 17, October 31, 1772; August 28, 1773.

³⁷ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 12, 1760; April 23, 1765; June 17, 1772; May 7, 1775.

³⁸ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 4, 1742.

³⁹ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 17, June 5, 1750.

⁴⁰ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 1, 1771; April 24, 1773.

⁴¹ St. John’s Parish Minutes, May 1, 1770; St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, May 31, 1753.

⁴² St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, December 20, 1720; St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 17, 1775.

⁴³ St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, September 11, 1742; April 23, 1765.

⁴⁴ St. John’s Parish Minutes, April 20, 1772; Easter Monday, 1774; April 17, 1775.

⁴⁵ Clark, State Records, XXIII, 70-71.

⁴⁶ Clark, State Records, XXV, 319-325, 415-422; XXIII, 577-583.

⁴⁷ Alan D. Watson, “Orphanage in Colonial North Carolina: Edgecombe County as a Case Study,” North Carolina Historical Review, LII (April, 1975), 111-114, hereinafter cited as Watson, “Orphanage in Colonial North Carolina.” For example, Elizabeth Penrice was relieved of her guardianship because she married “Jacob Butler an Extravagant Disorderly person and a Man of very Bad Character by which Means the Estate of the said Orphan is in danger of being totally Distroyed.” Chowan Court Minutes, January, 1756.

⁴⁸ Watson, “Orphanage in Colonial North Carolina,” 111-112.

⁴⁹ Onslow Court Minutes, April, July, October, 1755; January, 1756; April, 1758; April, 1759; February, 1761; March, 1764; January, 1769; April, October, 1770; New Hanover Court Minutes, June, September, 1767; April, 1772; January, 1773; October, 1775; Tryon Court Minutes, January, 1775; Pasquotank Court Minutes, October, 1761. Altogether, 127 orphans (10 percent) changed masters or guardians, but often this was prompted by the deaths of masters or guardians.

⁵⁰ Edgecombe Court Minutes, March, 1762; April, 1765; January, 1767.

⁵¹ Chowan Court Minutes, April, 1759. See St. Paul’s Parish Minutes, November 17, 1759.

⁵² Pasquotank Court Minutes, September, 1771.

⁵³ Clark, State Records, XXIII, 853.

⁵⁴ Chowan Court Minutes, April, 1758; October, 1760; Craven Court Minutes, June, 1774; New Hanover Court Minutes, October, 1768; January, 1769.

⁵⁵ Craven Court Minutes, October, 1760; June, 1774; Rowan Court Minutes, October, 1755; January, 1757; October, 1761.

⁵⁶ Tyrrell Court Minutes, June, 1756; September, 1757; Perquimans Court Minutes, October, 1758; Craven Court Minutes, July, 1764. See also the petition of Edward Holt, Tyrrell Court Minutes, September, 1762.

⁵⁷ William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), IX, 462, hereinafter cited as Saunders, Colonial Records. For instances in which the assembly denied petitions, see Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 553; VI, 807-808.

⁵⁸ Craven Court Minutes, September, 1770; September, 1771; Carteret Court Minutes, March, 1775. See also a court order exempting four men from working on the roads for two years and an order of the assembly exempting William Turner from taxes during his illness. Carteret Court Minutes, December, 1774; Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 1267.

⁵⁹ Bertie Court Minutes, March, 1772; Craven Court Minutes, June, 1775; Tyrrell Court Minutes, September, 1755; Bertie Court Minutes, October, 1761; Craven Court Minutes, June, 1747; Hyde Court Minutes, October, 1769. See also the exemption of the wife of a free black in Northampton County. Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 241.

⁶⁰ Chowan Court Minutes, October, 1766; New Hanover Court Minutes, September, 1760; Onslow Court Minutes, July, October, 1755.

⁶¹ Carteret Court Minutes, September, 1772.

⁶² Carteret Court Minutes, August, 1761; Craven Court Minutes, June, 1768.

⁶³ Craven Court Minutes, January, 1765; December, 1770; Rowan Court Minutes, October, 1766; August, 1771; Chowan Court Minutes, January, 1761; Bute Court Minutes, August, 1771.

⁶⁴ Rowan Court Minutes, October, 1766.

⁶⁵ Clark, State Records, XXIII, 312-314. When justices approved insolvency petitions between quarterly sessions, they had to record their actions with the courts. Thus, all petitions should be listed in the court minutes. See the petition of James Hall, Orange Court Minutes, February, 1765.

⁶⁶ Clark, State Records, XXIII, 588, 900-904. The “court crisis” in the colony beginning in 1773 resulted in the suspension of the operation of the superior courts until the Revolution. Thus, despite the law, petitions would have originated in the county courts. H. Braughn Taylor, “The Foreign Attachment Law and the Coming of the Revolution in North Carolina,” North Carolina Historical Review, LII (January, 1975), 20-36, hereinafter cited as Taylor, “The Foreign Attachment Law.”

⁶⁷ Orange Court Minutes, March, 1757; Cumberland Court Minutes, October, 1758; Craven Court Minutes, April, 1765. The superior courts apparently entertained few such appeals. See Taylor, “The Foreign Attachment Law,” 35.

⁶⁸ Orange Court Minutes, August, 1765; New Hanover Court Minutes, March, 1765.

⁶⁹ Petition of Richard Connon, June 22, 1757, Craven County, Insolvent Debtors, 1757-1837, State Archives; Orange Court Minutes, February, 1765.

⁷⁰ New Hanover Court Minutes, April, 1769. Nevertheless, petitions often were not explicit. Of twelve requests from insolvents in Granville County before 1775, only two showed estates of less than 40 shillings. Granville County, Insolvent Debtors, 1754-1853, State Archives.

⁷¹ The distribution of insolvency petitions resembles that of exemption petitions. Craven County in the east and the western counties, particularly Rowan and Orange, produced the largest number of petitions, which might constitute a tentative indication of the concentration of poverty in the colony.

⁷² The settlement of estates, which were recorded in the county court minutes of Rowan and Tryon, shows a high degree of solvency. In Rowan 82 of 94 deceased were solvent; in Tryon, 14 of 14. Rowan Court Minutes, 1753-1775; Tryon Court Minutes, 1769-1775.

⁷³ Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 509, 493.

⁷⁴ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 54-55.

⁷⁵ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 60.

⁷⁶ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 130-131, 199-200, 213-214.

⁷⁷ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 129-130, 204-205.

⁷⁸ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 62-63.

⁷⁹ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 92-93.

⁸⁰ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 62-64, 131, 205-206, 213-214, 220.

⁸¹ Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 200-201, 213, 566.

⁸² Saunders, Colonial Records, IX, 926.

⁸³ Craven Court Minutes, September, 1771; December, 1772; June, 1774; March, December, 1775; Carteret Court Minutes, March, December, 1772; June, 1774. See also Bute Court Minutes, May, 1774.