Would Nathaniel Woodward Sr. have switched churches in 1621 to get benefits?

Question

The immigrant ancestor, Nathaniel Woodward Sr. (Woodward-38) had 7 children baptized at Rushden, Northamptonshire (the last in 1620).  Then he begins to appear on records of the Poor in 1621 at Puddington (now Podington), Bedfordshire, two miles away (just across the county border).  The other four children were baptized there.  Is it probable that Rushden could not (or would not) help support his family, but Puddington did agree to help them?   The eldest son Nathaniel Woodward Jr. went to Boston, Massachusetts in 1633 as a servant, but his parents and siblings apparently didn't come over until 1637.  Can one assume that they were still too poor to join him for several years?

Answer 1

There's a good write up on Wikipedia about Engish Poor law: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Relief_of_the_Poor_1601

And much like the "warnings out" that you see in Colonial New England, the English parishes would refuse relief unless the petitioners were legal residents, so I doubt the Woodwards moved for better benefits. I would hazard a guess that one of the parents had a claim to the parish of Podington. Perhaps the father was ill, and later recovered, or was injured or disabled in military service? It would be interesting to see the actual entries in the poor relief books, there might be some clarification.

[Edited to add:] I can't yet prove this, but it appears that Podington was the smaller parish, perhaps substantially smaller.

Answer 2

I assume both parishes had only one church, so technically your question is did he move his family to a different parish for better poor relief? The wikipedia article has an uncited paragraph that says that there was a wide variation in the amount of poor relief given out by each parish and poor people would definitely migrate toward more generous parishes usually in towns, but Podington sounds like moving to a poorer parish. A later paragraph says that parishes could remove undeserving poor, maybe they were less deserving although I think that was intended for the idle poor (e.g. beggars, vagrants).

Another 'parish' reason is I kind of assume Podington had a Puritan vicar/congregation since he migrated from there to Massachusetts. Maybe the way they administered relief was better for his family.

The whole poor law system has many books written about it, example: On the Parish?: The Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England c.1550-1750

 

Comments

"...Puritans withheld poor relief unless the poor conformed to Puritan standards of behavior".

Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America, Volume 1 p. 483

"Puritan New England made a concerted effort to block the migration of England's lower orders to the colonies." p.484

After looking into this I would guess that this is yet another misidentification problem - there certainly was more than one Nathaniel Woodward in England in 1600-1630.

---

Probably should quit but the immigrant according to this source was a "mathematician and surveyor" which is certainly puzzling for some poor person from the middle of nowhere. Honestly, if a person is in the Great Migration Begins series that should be the primary citation we should we use for these profiles. What does Anderson say about his background?

---

Anderson, 2015 (The Great Migration Directory), page 384, says that he was the Nathaniel Woodward from Puddington, Bedfordshire (to Boston, 1637).  He also says that he was preceded by his son Nathaniel Woodward in 1633, and he cites GMB 2061-64.  He also cites the "The Maine Genealogist" article.

Answer 3

I have concluded that Nathaniel Woodward Sr. may not have brought all the rest of his children to Massachusetts ca. 1637.  Some of his older children perhaps remained in England and taken care of some of their younger siblings until money was available for passage.  Or some of them could have come over as servants like their eldest sibling Nathaniel Jr. had done in 1633. I have even seen ancestors where the father goes first and the mother and children come later, so Nathaniel Sr. could have joined Nathaniel Jr. in 1637 and the rest of the family later.  When you are that poor, the piecemeal approach to immigration is the only possibility for some families.