THE PRESENT STATE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 POOR-LAW QUESTION; 
 
 IN 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY. 
 
 CHARLES WETHERELL, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF BYFIELD, 
 
 IN THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE - STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXXIII. 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRTNTED by j. holmes, took’s court, chancery lane 
 
i\ 4- tf, 7 Pct*e, cf 
 
 33 *| 
 
 NN 53p 
 
 t 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Failing to effect any permanent good by various acts 
 of charity in his own parish, the writer endeavoured to 
 regulate the vestry meeting in conjunction with his 
 
 *> 
 
 efforts of benevolence, which enabled him to obtain a 
 view of the operation of the Poor Laws. Discovering 
 that those laws threw perpetual obstacles in his way, 
 and almost absorbed the good he sought to accomplish, 
 
 ..." 
 
 he rather directed his attention to the amelioration of 
 those laws ; when he was unexpectedly requested to 
 give evidence before the Committee of the House of 
 3 Lords ; which induced a wish to learn the opinions of 
 other witnesses, particularly those of Mr. Becher. The 
 perusal of that evidence led eventually to the following 
 Letters. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/presentstateofpoOOweth 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Cause for undertaking tlie work. Difficulty of procuring correct 
 Returns of Expenditure for the relief of the Poor. Report of 
 the Lords’ Committee, Importance of uniformity in keeping 
 Parish Accounts. The Vestry Meeting. Mode of keeping pa¬ 
 rochial accounts, and of making returns to Parliament, pro¬ 
 posed .page 1 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Disbursements to able-bodied Labourers. The Magistrates 
 charged unjustly with mal-administration, while the 43rd of 
 Elizabeth remains unaltered. Opinion of Bishop of Bath and 
 Wells. The present law impracticable. Lord Suffield’s opinion 
 of the 12th and 13th sections of 59 Geo. III. examined. 
 The Labour-rate. The Scale—difficulty of finding employ¬ 
 ment. Head-money. Distinction between the rich and the 
 poor necessary for their mutual advantage .page Id 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 The Evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords 
 by Mr. Becher, examined. The price of agricultural labour in 
 Nottinghamshire affected by the supply of work from the fac¬ 
 tories—no rule for the price of labour in Sussex. Mr. Becher’s 
 plan of taking the agricultural population alone in both counties, 
 an insufficient method of judging of their relative condition:—; 
 supported by calculations and by arguments.page 21 
 
[ VI ] 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Whether Sussex lias advanced faster than Nottinghamshire in 
 pauperization, shown by a comparison of the amount of the 
 rates at different periods. Other counties compared. The 
 greatest increase in Nottinghamshire. Difference not accounted 
 for by difference in the increase of population. Difference be¬ 
 tween Nottinghamshire and Sussex shown by increase of the rate 
 in connexion with the acreage, and in connexion with the popu¬ 
 lation. The correct view obtained by combining the amount 
 paid for labour in addition to the rates in both counties. Not¬ 
 tinghamshire not in a position to regulate Sussex.—P.S. Price 
 of w r ages in the two counties, according to the report of 1824; 
 with the inference ..P a g e 29 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Comparison of other counties. Lancaster, Bedford, Hertford. 
 Mr. Slaney’s calculation examined, by comparing—1st, Poor- 
 rate and Population ; 2ndly, Poor-rate and Acreage. Greatest 
 increase of population in manufacturing counties—greatest di¬ 
 minution of rate in manufacturing and southern counties, and 
 not in northern .page 37 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 The Labourers’ Friend Society. Lord Shrewsbury’s remarks on 
 the necessity of providing employment, at moderate wages— 
 that necessity argued. The danger of forcing w r ages to an 
 average of 125. per week. Wages already too high in com¬ 
 parison with the price of Wheat. Higher wages would aug¬ 
 ment the rates—shown by experience .page 46 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Mr. Senior’s opinion, adduced by Mr. Becher, examined—and 
 applied to Nottinghamshire and Sussex. Difference between 
 the amount of Property-tax and the Rental. Sir John Sinclair’s 
 opinion on the price of labour. Expenditure per head of each 
 pauper relieved in Nottinghamshire and in Sussex—and in all 
 the counties of England in 1814.l )a g e 
 
[ VII ] 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 The evils stated—but no remedies mentioned. Letting land to 
 cottagers proposed as a remedy. The case of four parishes in 
 Rutlandshire compared with four in Sussex, examined. Mr. Est- 
 court’s parish of Long Newnton. Mr. Pollen’s case.. . .page Cl 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Remedies proposed. Preliminary step of appointing Commis¬ 
 sioners. Authorizing them to obtain possession of land, and to 
 let it in portions to the Poor. Taking that power from Church¬ 
 wardens and Overseers. The Proprietor of the soil the inter¬ 
 ested party. The act of 2 Will. 4. cap. 42. examined, .page 68 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 The supply of labour to the market should be reduced wdien ex¬ 
 cessive. Emigration. Surplus Labourers to be admitted to 
 take land enough for their support. The Labour-rate. Re¬ 
 maining Labourers—employment to be found for them—the 
 minimum of their wages—all parties equipoised. Remaining 
 Labourers to have allotments of Land. A National Advantage. 
 Earl Stanhope. Bishop of Bath and Wells.P a g e 77 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 Savings Bank—Friendly Society—Labourer required to deposit. 
 Long Newnton referred to again. The Hampshire Friendly 
 Society examined. Savings Banks in Northern and in Southern 
 Counties compared. Union of Friendly or Benefit Societies 
 with allotments of Land. Depositors in Savings Banks to be 
 allowed to purchase Annuities. Parish of Thurgarton investi¬ 
 gated. Mr. Becher’s Anti-pauper System .P a g e 85 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Commence with the Young Man. Allotments of Land. Deposit 
 to Benefit Society for himself—for his wife—and for their chil¬ 
 dren—the plan of accomplishing it detailed. Means of provid¬ 
 ing for other Labourers above thirty years of age. Older 
 Labourers. Widows. Advantages of the System. Law of 
 Settlement ...P a g e 94 
 
[ VIII ] 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Dispensaries connected with Benefit Societies and Allotments. 
 Mr. Smith’s plan for Dispensaries. Workhouses—Hatfield 
 Workhouse. Conclusion. A new' system of Poor Laws a 
 part of a grand scheme of combined effort. Bank Charter— 
 and Savings Banks. Corn Law r s—and Bullion. Manufacturer 
 —and Foreign Trade. His Majesty’s Commission. Report of 
 Commissioners. Comparison of Population with the Rates in 
 1801, 1811, 1821, and 1831. Difference of Expenditure per 
 acre in 1748, 1803, and 1829. Importance of immediate im¬ 
 provement in Poor Laws.page 105 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Abstract of Poor Returns to March 1832 examined, particularly 
 w r ith reference to the money spent for labour from Poor-rate, in 
 
 the different counties of England.P a g e 113 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A.) Form of obtaining Returns.page i 
 
 (B.) Mode of keeping Parish Accounts.v 
 
 (C.) Return to Parliament annually of the total Items of 
 
 those accounts.xxvi 
 
 (D.) Comparative view of all the Counties of England .... xxix 
 
 (E.) Abstract of the Returns sent to the Committee on La¬ 
 bourers’ Wages, 1824 . xxx 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, 
 
 &c. 
 
 LETTER I, 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 The summons I had the honour to receive from the 
 Marquess of Bute to give evidence before “ the Select 
 Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to consider 
 of the Poor Laws,” in December 1830, reaching me not 
 two hours before I was expected to attend, prevented me 
 from giving my sentiments their full developement; and 
 though I subsequently put them into a more regular form, 
 I preferred to wait till the evidence given before the Com¬ 
 mittee, by other witnesses, was printed, previously to the pub¬ 
 lication of my opinions. The breaking up of the Committee, 
 however, entirely defeated my intention; and I should not 
 now have ventured to renew the subject, had not the benevo- 
 
 B 
 
Q 
 
 /V 
 
 lent wishes of a large portion of the affluent and influential to 
 benefit the poor by letting them allotments of land, again 
 called for the attention of Parliament. 
 
 To your Lordship, as Chairman of that Committee, it is 
 natural I should wish to address my remarks in acknow¬ 
 ledgment of the civilities I have always received from you, 
 in connexion with this subject, and from the profound 
 knowledge your Lordship evinced in committee on this intri¬ 
 cate question; for the permission to do so, I beg now, most 
 respectfully, to express my obligation. 
 
 To me it was no matter of surprise that the Committee 
 discovered the difficulty of understanding the method of ad¬ 
 ministering the Poor Laws generally adopted in agricultural 
 districts, and acknowledged that difficulty in the only report 
 their Lordships made to the House, and on which their Lord- 
 ships introduced, and passed through the House of Lords, a 
 Bill, intituled, “ An Act for procuring Returns to Parliament 
 annually of the amount and application of the monies collected 
 by the Poor-rates in the several parishes in England and 
 Wales,” since, if your Lordship will do me the honour to refer 
 to my evidence, it will be seen, that I endeavoured to direct 
 the attention of the Committee to the importance of procuring 
 correct returns, principally with regard to the payment of able- 
 bodied labourers, partially, or occasionally, from the fund raised 
 for the relief of the poor. “ It appears to me,” I then stated, 
 “ that the view we are almost compelled to take of the poor- 
 rate does not afford us a correct estimation of it; that which is 
 now paid for the relief of the labourer is mixed up with that 
 which is paid for the relief of the aged, and sick, and impotent, 
 who come more especially under the act of the 43rd of Queen 
 Elizabeth.” 
 
 o: nr'-,:* ? <hI : - A; »: <•»>, . n 
 
 The Report, ordered to be printed on the 15th of February, 
 1831, was as follows: 
 
 * A a /•/■/. i o i 3 . . i i ^ ' . * . 
 
s 
 
 By the Lords Committees appointed a Select Committee to con¬ 
 sider of the Poor Laws, and to report their Observations 
 thereupon from time to time to the House ; and to whom was 
 referred the Petition of George Gunning, of Frindsbury, in the 
 county of Kent, a Lieutenant on the half-pay of His Majesty’s 
 first regiment of Dragoon Guards, praying their Lordships to 
 take into consideration the state of the Poor Laws ; and to 
 whom was also referred the Petition of the Magistrates, 
 Minister, Churchwarden, and other Inhabitants and Parish¬ 
 ioners of Ightham, praying for relief from the evils of pau¬ 
 perism ; 
 
 Ordered to report , 
 
 That the Committee have met, and have applied themselves to 
 the consideration of the important subject referred to them. In 
 pursuing this inquiry they have found material inconvenience 
 from the impossibility of obtaining accurate accounts of the vast 
 annual sums which are raised professedly for the support of the 
 Poor. 
 
 The Committee are also of opinion that the variations made in 
 the schedules prescribed by Parliament have not only caused con¬ 
 siderable difficulty in framing the accounts, but also rendered it 
 impossible to form any just comparison between the different items 
 of expenditure, or any estimate of the extent of its misapplication 
 at different periods ; and they have also found that, from the want 
 of any general system, many months elapse before the accounts are 
 submitted to Parliament. 
 
 They have therefore directed a Bill to be prepared for your 
 Lordships’ consideration, in which they have prescribed that form 
 of accounts which appears to them likely to afford as much infor¬ 
 mation as it is possible to expect from the complicated nature of 
 parish expenditure ; and they beg to recommend that these returns 
 should be made to Parliament under such regulations as your 
 Lordships may deem best calculated to effect the object they have 
 in view. 
 
 The Committee have only further to state, that they have been 
 induced to call your Lordships’ attention to such an apparently 
 minor object at this early period of their inquiry, by the desire, if 
 possible, to obtain a return of the parochial expenditure up to 
 next Lady-day before the close of the present Session. 
 
 b 2 
 
4 
 
 The necessity for their Lordships’ remarks, no one who 
 has seen the method of procuring returns* can possibly 
 doubt, and especially when it is remembered that, for the year 
 ending the 25th of March, 1827, no less than 484 parishes 
 had not made any return. 1 f 
 
 It is gratifying to me to observe, that by the last circular of 
 the House of Commons, a separate return is ordered to be made 
 of the amount expended for the employment of able-bodied 
 labourers. Still, the necessity which exists for becoming 
 acquainted with this item of expenditure applies to almost 
 every other for the relief of the poor, though not with equal 
 force. 
 
 My fears always prevailed, while the bill to which the 
 report of their Lordships’ Committee referred was passing 
 through the House of Lords, that it would be found de¬ 
 fective in the preceptive part of it. It seemed to call for 
 that which did not exist, and for which it did not appear 
 to make sufficient provision. The method to be adopted, if 
 such bill can ever succeed, must be, I humbly presume, 
 first to regulate the mode of keeping parish accounts: for 
 unless there be some certain degree of uniformity in the 
 plan of arranging the expenditure of parochial assessments, 
 as the disbursements occur , it will be very troublesome 
 
 * For a copy of the Form for making returns see Appendix (A). 
 
 f In a note addressed to me, on the 22nd Sept. 1832, by Mr. Rickman, 
 in reply to a request to be furnished with a copy of the return of the 
 poor-rate for each county, for the year ending 25th March, 1832, which is 
 printed annually, and which I supposed was already prepared, as the order 
 was made by the House of Commons soon after Lady-day, and circulated 
 very early; Mr. Rickman writes, “You overrate the facility of procuring 
 intelligible returns, or any returns at all, from those who see trouble and no 
 benefit in making them. If we send out at Easter 15,000 letters for the 
 annual poor returns, about 3,000 defaulters have a second letter in the 
 course of the summer, and further, I always expect to send about 1,000 letters, 
 somewhat special and minatory, at Christmas. Thus, you see how impossible 
 it is that the return for the year ending March, 1832, should appear till 
 nearly March, 1833.” 
 
5 
 
 and difficult at the close of the year to exhibit any exact 
 summary of the different items: and to call for returns 
 of such items before such uniformity is obtained, must 
 only perplex the parochial authorities, and render the per¬ 
 formance of the duty that bill required of the magistrate 
 so dissatisfactory to Parliament, as possibly to make the 
 whole intention of the bill nugatory. That the uniformity 
 in keeping the accounts might follow the demand for an assimi¬ 
 lated return from every place, is undeniable; neither is it less 
 reasonable to suppose that some precursory instructions 
 would have provided the bill with a fairer chance of work¬ 
 ing well. And as the bill, with perhaps much justice, fixed 
 a penalty for failing to make the required return, there 
 would have been a great diminution of any just cause for mur¬ 
 muring, if the payment of the penalty were compellable only 
 where obstinacy or neglect, and not the want of instruction, 
 had been the occasion of incurring it. “ The totals of the 
 poor-rate accounts” only, had been called for in former years, 
 and the sudden transition from the totals to the items of ex¬ 
 penditure, was, I would respectfully suggest, more than might 
 be expected; and the penalty for the non-transmission of 
 them, so soon, too, after the close of the parochial year, had 
 the semblance of approximating towards severity, especially 
 without at least a twelvemonth’s notice. 
 
 To attain such uniformity is perhaps not very easy. Much 
 would depend upon the regularity of holding, and upon the 
 efficiency of conducting, the vestry meeting. It frequently 
 occurs that churchwardens refuse to contribute any assistance 
 as overseers of the poor; and indeed they prefer to retain the 
 office year after year, supposing it prevents their election to 
 the office of overseer, under the belief that the one supersedes 
 the claim of service for the other, not knowing that the 
 duty of churchwarden includes that of overseer, and rather 
 demands, primarily and more strictly, than in any degree ex- 
 
6 
 
 empts from, the obligation to perform, such duty. Possibly a 
 little too much disregard is paid to the matter by the magi¬ 
 strate, to whose feelings it may be preferable to have from a 
 parish one regular and constant deputy overseer delegated, 
 than annually to be troubled with four fresh parish officers, 
 some, or most, of whom are but little accustomed to business, 
 and unaccustomed to it chiefly because they depend upon the 
 deputy; but if the whole were required always to unite in 
 attending to their obligation and responsibility as overseers of 
 the poor, it is more probable, than it can now be, that something 
 not very far from such uniform assimilation might be accom¬ 
 plished. 
 
 Whether it be the duty of the incumbent , or not, to take 
 care that parochial meetings be regularly summoned, and to 
 preside over them, is not for me to venture to determine ; or 
 who has authority to require that they be regularly summoned 
 and attended constantly by the churchwardens and overseers, 
 I will not presume to assert; yet it is possible that to the 
 neglect of holding such meetings, so constituted, much of the 
 present enormity of expenditure may be attributable in the 
 villages of agricultural counties, where there is not any work- 
 house. It is, however, certain that Burn, in his 4 Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Law,’ under the article c Vestry ,’ writes, “ that the minister 
 hath a special duty incumbent on him in this matter, and must 
 be responsible to the bishop for his care therein, and therefore 
 in every parish meeting he presides, for regulating and direct¬ 
 ing this affair.” May then the magistrate represent to the 
 ordinary the neglect of the minister to hold and regulate the 
 business of such vestry meetings? and can the ordinary require 
 and compel the minister and churchwardens of a parish to hold 
 regular vestry meetings, in conjunction with the overseers, for 
 the despatch of business ? or may the whole of the obligation 
 be counted obsolete? Perhaps these may be esteemed interest¬ 
 ing and important questions: interesting, as it may be well 
 
7 
 
 for the clergy to know how far they are involved in the obli¬ 
 gation by their institution; and important, as it would very 
 greatly diminish the business of the magistrate, if he were ex¬ 
 onerated from the compulsion to investigate any case brought 
 before him, until he knew it had been heard and rejected by 
 the assembled vestry, consisting of the minister, churchwardens, 
 overseers, and principal inhabitants. 
 
 If, however, under their superintendence and direction the 
 accounts were uniformly kept, and regularly entered, returns 
 might be obtained which would form very valuable statistical 
 data,'* as well as a correct mode of ascertaining comparative 
 management; from which Parliament might learn the real 
 condition of the poor, and the best plan of administering relief 
 to them. 
 
 To a mode of keeping the accounts connected with paro¬ 
 chial expenditure I beg to direct your Lordship’s attention.-j- 
 
 It may be objected, that the items of these accounts 
 are too numerous, by which the parochial book-keeping will 
 be rendered intricate. The plan is intended for a parish 
 where there is not any workhouse, or which does not send 
 her poor to any incorporated workhouse, and therefore in¬ 
 cludes the whole of the disbursements. Yet I trust it will 
 be acknowledged that the more distinct the items are, the 
 more specific will be the laws which are to regulate them. 
 To legislate against an evil, the cause, amount, or con¬ 
 sequence of which is not known, because associated and 
 blended> with others, is to make laws at random,—an ano¬ 
 maly against the repetition of which their Lordships’ Com- 
 
 * Political economists have been reproached with too small a use of facts, 
 and too large an employment of theory. Let it not be feared that erro¬ 
 neous deductions may be made from such recorded facts; the errors which 
 arise from the absence of facts are far more numerous and more durable 
 than those which result from unsound reasoning respecting true data.— 
 Economy of Machinery and Manufactures , by C. Babbage , Esq. p. 119. 
 
 t The accounts will be found in the Appendix (B). 
 
8 
 
 mittee attempted to make provision, by the bill which did 
 pass the upper house, because it required more distinct spe¬ 
 cification. 
 
 Does it not seem almost surrendering the evil to its 
 own domination, without any attempt to reduce its force, if it 
 be not carefully and minutely disentangled ? I would therefore 
 respectfully submit that the investigation should extend to 
 the whole range of the expenditure, not omitting those minutiae 
 which are comprised under the head of expenses for the sick, 
 the blind, the impotent, &c. whether provided for in, or out of 
 a workhouse. 
 
 Some of the items, it may be objected, are illegal, yet, as 
 they are of frequent occurrence, they should be known and 
 resisted; for they cannot be fully detected, if they are per¬ 
 mitted to be placed in the account under the item “ Expenses 
 not included under the above heads.” * 
 
 I would propose, that the method to be adopted to procure 
 uniformity, might be applied to parochial accounts in the same 
 manner as that which was pursued with parish registers. 
 Books uniformly ruled, for making the various entries, might 
 be supplied to each parish ; and from these, copies might be 
 made to Parliament without difficulty. Some weeks before 
 the close of the parochial year, each parish should be supplied 
 with a printed skeleton similar to that contained in the two 
 last sheets of the accounts I have now the honour to submit to 
 your Lordship,f to be filled up by the overseers, and by them 
 attested in the presence of the magistrates in petty session 
 held for the express purpose; and it appears reasonable, 
 
 * On perusing the report of the Committee of the House of Commons on 
 the Poor Laws, in 1819, I find at the foot of page 4, a recommendation to 
 establish “ a prescribed form for keeping parochial accounts, and giving to 
 them periodical publicity; by which the amount of expenditure will be seen 
 under its proper head, and any illegal or unnecessary disbursements will be 
 brought to light and detected 
 
 f See Appendix (C). 
 
9 
 
 that a penalty should be required and enforced by the magi¬ 
 strates, if the overseers neglect to fulfil this last act of their 
 duty, before they are absolved from the obligations of their 
 office. By this method, Parliament would be furnished with 
 correct returns, and at the earliest possible time. 
 
 Intending soon to solicit your Lordship’s attention to an¬ 
 other portion of this subject, 
 
 I remain, &c. &c. 
 
10 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 To one of the principal items of parochial expenditure, the 
 disbursements incurred by the employment of able-bodied 
 labourers , I now beg your attention. 
 
 Frequently we hear of the maladministration of the Poor 
 Laws; a charge which seems indefinite until the duties and 
 responsibilities of the vestry meeting be satisfactorily ascer¬ 
 tained. It is presumed, however, that the shaft is not seldom 
 directed at the conduct of the magistrate; and perhaps even 
 his duty is not very clearly defined. Sorry am I that I cannot 
 fully agree in sentiment with the respected and benevolent 
 Prelate, a member of the Lords’ Committee, who, in a pam¬ 
 phlet, asserts that the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth “ was enacted 
 merely for the aged and infirm,” and that “ the aid granted by 
 it should be given to them, and them alone.” His Lordship is 
 perfectly correct, it is true, as it regards a portion of that act 
 of parliament, which required that the overseers should raise 
 “ competent sums of money for and towards the necessary 
 relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among 
 them being poor and not able to work .*” and if this were the 
 whole of the enactment, the relief should be given to them, 
 and to them alone. Since, however, we find that this portion 
 of the section is connected with others, the overseers are equally 
 empowered and required to raise other funds for other pur¬ 
 poses: first, “ for setting to work the children of all such whose 
 parents shall not by the said churchwardens, overseers, or the 
 
11 
 
 greater part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain 
 their childrenand secondly, “ for setting to work all such 
 persons, married or unmarried, having no means to maintain 
 them, as use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their 
 living byand the method to be pursued for raising those 
 funds and for disbursing them is specified, “ and also to raise 
 weekly or otherwise (by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, 
 vicar, and other, and of every occupier of land, houses, tithes 
 impropriate, propriations of tithes, coal-mine, or saleable 
 underwoods in the said parish, in such competent sum or sums 
 of money as they shall think fit,) a convenient stock of flax, 
 hemp, wool, thread, iron, and other necessary ware and stuff, to 
 set the poor on work.” Now, my Lord, as such work is not 
 practicable in any point of view in the present day, and the 
 kind of work has not been by statute altered to suit the change 
 effected by the lapse of time, it must appear that the charge of 
 maladministration is not applicable to the overseers of the 
 poor for giving money when work cannot be found, nor to the 
 magistrate for failing to notice, and for not obviating, the diffi¬ 
 culty now experienced of incurring much expense by paying 
 for the relief of the unemployed labourer in agriculture out of 
 the parochial collection, when the farmer will not or cannot 
 supply him with work and pay him for it, and work cannot be 
 found elsewhere. 
 
 The principle of the existing law is most probably sound: that 
 time has rendered the application of it impracticable is perspicu¬ 
 ously true. Notwithstanding, much of the present evil is con¬ 
 cealed, not in its amount but in the detail of it; and where the 
 default of administering the law is rightly chargeable, is not the 
 first matter to be detected, and perhaps under present circum¬ 
 stances not detectable. It would seem that the evil exists more 
 palpably in some of the counties purely agricultural, than in 
 those a portion of whose population is employed in manufac¬ 
 ture, such as the counties of Bedford, Berks, Bucks, Cam¬ 
 bridge, Essex, Hertford, Huntingdon, Kent, Norfolk, North- 
 
12 
 
 ampton, Oxford, Southampton, Suffolk, Sussex, and Wilts: as 
 if the non-employment of labourers in agriculture at sufficient 
 wages were the chief source from whence it springs. But is 
 any one capable of making this assertion absolutely, my Lord, 
 without evidence ? And is there any evidence while we are 
 destitute of sufficient specification in the returns ? And can 
 such returns be procured where the system of keeping the 
 accounts is defective, because not specific and minute ? The 
 complaint lies probably against the law , with more reason 
 than against those who are called upon to see it enforced. 
 
 The attention a member of the Lords’ Committee has given 
 to the practicability of the present system of the Poor Laws 
 demands the thanks of the nation. In the admirable charge 
 which the Lord Suffield delivered at the Quarter Session for 
 the county of Norfolk, in March 1830, his Lordship details the 
 views he takes of the law as it then stood, and endeavours to 
 show that it is adequate to the difficulties.a parish may have 
 to encounter in providing employment to the supernumerary 
 population, adequate at least in the principle , if not in the 
 amount , of its provision. To the 12th and 13th sections of the 
 59th of George the Third, cap. 12, his Lordship refers; the 
 former as applicable to the idle, and the latter to the indus¬ 
 trious : and concludes that the combination of the provision of 
 these two sections “ gives all we want,” and is persuaded that, 
 “ where applied, we shall lose sight and feeling of the Poor’s- 
 rateand then, in support of his views, cites the case of “ The 
 King against Collett.” 
 
 I owe his Lordship an apology for venturing to examine 
 these sentiments, and for exhibiting the state in which a 
 parish may be placed, for which, I would respectfully suggest, 
 provision is not made by those two enactments. 
 
 The overseers of the poor of the parish of Kelsale, without 
 providing employment for those labourers who could not pro¬ 
 cure it for themselves, had paid them certain weekly sums of 
 money for their support and that of their families. I am not 
 
13 
 
 aware that the act of Queen Elizabeth sets forth the necessity 
 for a profitable return to the parish from the employment pro¬ 
 vided, but secures the opportunity by the taxation of the inha¬ 
 bitants for money, and by the purchase of articles* and enforces 
 the employment by empowering “ the Justices,” and requiring 
 that they “ shall send to the house of correction or common 
 gaol, such as shall not employ themselves to work, being ap¬ 
 pointed thereto, as aforesaid.” But the overseers of Kelsale 
 had neglected their duty in not endeavouring to provide em¬ 
 ployment, though it might have proved to be, in the event, 
 unprofitable to the parish. 
 
 But if we suppose that the overseers of a parish had received 
 an application for employment from any number of labourers 
 belonging to the parish, unable to procure it for themselves, 
 and that it was satisfactorily proved to such overseers, that 
 there did not exist any demand for the labour they offered to 
 the market, and could not be purchased at any price, however 
 reduced; and if we continue to suppose that such labourers 
 had respectfully applied to the magistrate, and had obtained an 
 order upon the parish officers for employment, for, under the 
 43rd of Elizabeth, cap. 2, this is the precise object of the 
 law with regard to persons so situated, would it be possible, 
 after the overseers had by taxation raised money, and with 
 that money had purchased and provided “ a convenient stock 
 of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, and other necessary ware 
 and stuff,” to find employment for such labourers, “ by setting 
 the poor to work” on them? I conclude that the overseers 
 could not provide them with employment at such work, and 
 that this part of the enactment is obsolete. 
 
 The 12th section of the 59 Geo. 3. cap. 12, acknowledges 
 this defect, and attempts to provide a remedy, which my Lord 
 Suffield seems to consider specific for the idle, and the 13th 
 section for the industrious labourer. Now it has always ap¬ 
 peared to me, that the former of these sections is an inadequate 
 substitute for the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth, cap. 2 ; and for 
 
several years I have wished to see returns made to Parliament 
 in reply to queries proposed to every parish, that Parliament 
 might learn how far the two enactments had been adopted, 
 and had been found upon experiment to be practicable, and to 
 what extent remedial; for though I do not think either pro¬ 
 vision adequate, even if the number of acres were indefinitely 
 multiplied, to find employment for the supernumerary labourers 
 in agriculture, and to supply them with means of subsistence 
 without other aids, yet I cannot but admire the principle of 
 the two sections as far as they go. Let us, however, suppose 
 that the former section provides employment, and we will say 
 for the idle. Of course we presume that the wages will not 
 be high, but only sufficient for their maintenance, or, as it is 
 expressed in the section, “ reasonable wages for their work.” 
 Now, my Lord, I beg to inquire how such labourers are to be 
 supported when the weather or the season precludes all attempt 
 to employ them on the land ? It has appeared to me that 
 some wisdom is discoverable in the act of 43rd Queen Eliza¬ 
 beth, cap. 2, as it provided employment which might be con¬ 
 ducted under covert in wet and severe weather, when the land 
 will not receive the labour of the man who has “ no ordinary 
 and daily trade of life to get his living by.” 
 
 If we consider the case of a parish only partially oppressed 
 with a superabundance of labour, for instance, in winter and 
 not in summer, I respectfully consider the section inadequate. 
 Should the lands occupied by the farmer consume all the 
 labour in the market, during the seasons suited to cultivate the 
 soil, yet, when the frost and snow and rain of winter compel the 
 farmer to desist, he must pay the labourer though unemployed, 
 for it is vain to say to him, ‘ You must go and work upon the 
 parish niece, and if you do not fulfil your day’s work there, 
 you si not be paid your wages!’ This section is consequently 
 almost as impracticable as the obsolete scheme of providing 
 flax, hemp, thread, and such like stuff. Still I presume it may 
 be rendered available to employ the old and infirm men in a 
 
15 
 
 parish, with considerable advantage in suitable weather, but 
 not as a remedy for the idleness of the profligate though able- 
 bodied labourer. 
 
 Should it, however, he objected, that the profits of the pro¬ 
 duce of the twenty acres will form a fund for paying those 
 labourers who are employed on it, we must then include in 
 such argument the fact that these men are employed at work 
 upon the land in good weather as well as in had, and indeed 
 all the good weather of the year, and of course have no other 
 means of employment all the year round. It becomes in this 
 case a remedy, not for the idle, so much as for the supernu¬ 
 merary labourer , and has the effect of reducing the supply of 
 the labour market to its proper level. 
 
 We may hope that the 13th section will be more beneficial; 
 yet here too my fears prevail. If the industrious labourer he 
 allowed a portion of the land to cultivate for himself, in con¬ 
 nexion with this privilege, a question of the utmost difficulty 
 arises: how is he to be provided with employment, in addi¬ 
 tion to his allotment of land? When he has cultivated the land 
 and derived the advantage of a harvest, may not the farmer 
 refuse him employment? If he apply to the magistrate he cannot 
 obtain an order for relief until the produce of his harvest is ex¬ 
 pended, or the stock raised from the land is consumed; and 
 if he may not have employment when his crop is exhausted, 
 he must have relief, where there is not any workhouse to 
 receive him. I cannot therefore think it to be correct, that 
 the provision of these two sections gives all we want, and re¬ 
 lieves the magistrate from the charge of maladministration, as 
 he is, equally as before the passing of Mr. Sturges Bourne’s 
 Act, unable to meet the difficulty the 43rd of Elizabeth 
 imposes upon him, of ordering employment in a manner now 
 impracticable.* 
 
 * In the report of the Committee of the House of Commons for 1819, an 
 attempt is made to escape from the necessity of finding employment, by re¬ 
 presenting it to be “an erroneous construction of the act of Elizabeth,” 
 
16 
 
 In many parishes whose labouring population is occupied 
 solely in agriculture, without any particular manufacture, the 
 acreage is sufficient to require their employment all the year 
 round; in others, where the agricultural labourers abound 
 beyond the demand for their labour, the difficulty of providing 
 for them is unquestionably very great. That the plan known 
 by the name of the labourers rate , might possibly be adopted 
 with advantage in some instances, is very certain. And it is 
 to be regretted that an act of Parliament has not passed, to 
 continue in force only two or three years, to try the effect of it, 
 provided a certain portion of the rate-payers, perhaps five- 
 sixths, consented, and the magistrates approved of its terms 
 and allowed the rate, in such parishes as would like to make 
 the experiment, not as they are now obliged to attempt it, if 
 they attempt it at all, too feebly to make it binding and com¬ 
 pulsory, because it is not sanctioned by law.* That it would 
 
 (see page 5) that “ parishes are supposed liable to be called upon to effect 
 the impracticable purpose of finding employment for all who may at any time 
 require it.” And afterwards, at page 10, the same Committee “anxiously 
 direct the future attention of the House to such measures as may be cal¬ 
 culated ultimately to relieve parishes from the impracticable obligation of 
 finding employment for all who may at anytime require it at their hands 
 thereby tacitly acknowledging the “ obligation .” And, indeed, they proceed 
 to recommend a method of providing that employment, “ by removing any 
 restraint on the free circulation of labour, and giving every facility and 
 encouragement to seek employment in any part of the King’s dominions:” 
 showing, I would submit, the want of confidence in the arguments used in 
 support of the assertion, that it is “ an erroneous construction.” 
 
 * The act which has since passed (9th August 1832,) intituled, “ An 
 Act for the better Employment of Labourers in agricultural parishes until 
 the 25th day of March 1834,” contains a most unfortunate clause in the 6th 
 section. The words are—“ That this act shall not extend”—“to any parish, 
 township, vill, or place, where the rates for the relief of the poor shall not 
 exceed five shillings in the pound on the full or rack rental thereof,” It 
 seems to say that a poor-rate of 4 s. lid. is no evil; but an evil that requires 
 legislation when it amounts to 5s. in the pound. And how it is to be adopted 
 in a parish, if one farmer happens to have his land at a very low rent, and 
 does pay 5s. in the pound, and another pays a high rent, and his levies do 
 not reach 5s. in the pound, I do not understand. Who is to decide, whether 
 under such circumstances the act does or does not apply ? The difficulty 
 
17 
 
 be more profitable to the farmer to pay the labourer for labour 
 clone on his farm, a little more than he pays him to be idle or 
 to profess to work upon the roads, is no speculative notion: but 
 it is hard that he who occupies his full quota of labourers, not 
 so much according to the opportunity he has for employing 
 them, as because he thinks it to be his duty, should be assessed 
 for the support of those labourers for whom other persons 
 ought with equal obligation to find work, and pay them for it 
 out of their own pocket, and not from the rates. 
 
 Without the assistance of such labour-rate , the magistrate 
 is frequently obliged to have recourse to measures which no 
 statutes sanction, by fixing a uniform price of wages through 
 the district, regulated according to the price of bread, and to 
 the number of persons in the family. This scale is sometimes 
 very deceptive, for it applies fixedly to every case, however 
 equivocal. It is not very easy to discover what means of sub¬ 
 sistence a family possess beyond the price of labour paid to the 
 man, while the scale relates to the remuneration he alone 
 obtains for his labour, where it is made to apply to all 
 the labourers in the district. Too frequently perhaps the 
 magistrates require that the labourer shall receive so much for 
 his labour, and if he do not obtain it, they issue, not a written 
 and specific, but a general and verbal order, that he shall 
 receive the amount the scale regulates, either as the remunera¬ 
 tion for labour performed, or as relief from the rate raised 
 
 always has been to make the labour-rate compulsory, but in the case I have 
 alluded to, it is perfectly useless, through the intervention of this clause alone. 
 Neither is it possible to ascertain what is the rack rental, where one-fourth 
 of the land is in the occupation of the owners; nor does the act compel the 
 rack-renter to acknowledge what is the amount of his rent. It is a pity that 
 the act was not unshackled, as it is a mere experiment for a season and a 
 half: I say a half, because it is well known in agricultural districts, that the 
 difficulty of finding employment is after Lady-day, when, the threshing, 
 draining, and other winter work being over, and the spring sowing principally 
 ended, there is little work to be done until the hay-harvest commences; and 
 that more is paid to labourers out of employment at that time than at any 
 other period of the year. 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 for the relief of the poor, or mixtly from both, disregard¬ 
 ing, unintentionally indeed, what amount the other mem¬ 
 bers of the family earn. Perhaps the fund is then misappro¬ 
 priated. 
 
 It is possible that even the labour-rate would not entirely 
 obviate this difficulty, though it would reduce its amount in 
 every instance in which a labourer was employed by the farmer 
 upon his land, and received from the farmer the whole of his 
 wages for which he had agreed to work: provided it was done 
 under the regulation of the labour-rate. The grand difficulty 
 presents itself in the case of a number of labourers, for whom 
 the farmers, after having taken all the men they can employ 
 under a labour-rate, are not able to find any productive em¬ 
 ployment for the remainder: for the labour-rate presumes that 
 there is not more disposable labour in the market than is 
 sufficient to supply the demand, supposing the farmers are 
 willing to employ it at a fair remuneration; and is to be adopted 
 only where some farmers will not employ their quota of 
 labourers according to their acreage and its state, whether of 
 pasture or tillage, and the number of men in the labour 
 market. How such labourers are to be provided for, after the 
 land has received all who ought reasonably to be occupied on the 
 soil, forms the principal and almost insurmountable obstacle 
 against legislation. The law demands that the man be em¬ 
 ployed ; the magistrates order the employment to be provided, 
 and perhaps fix the remuneration he is to receive; the over¬ 
 seers cannot find the employment, the magistrates order relief; 
 for it is most revolting to the charities of our nature, that a 
 fellow creature should be suffered to starve, even though the 
 law may not have made any absolute provision to prevent it. 
 Here a demoralization of the worst kind ensues; the market 
 being overstocked with labour beyond the demand, the price of 
 labour necessarily diminishes, the rates are a burden felt most 
 oppressively, and pauperism progresses, till the farmer and 
 the labourer are both compelled to have recourse to the 
 
19 
 
 advice or authority of the magistrate for the attainment of their 
 respective rights. 
 
 In many districts, where there is not any parochial nor in¬ 
 corporated workhouse, the allowance of head money is made 
 by the magistrates; and this too sometimes by a general and 
 not a specific rule, and without regard to the necessities of the 
 family, hut only from the contingency of comprising so many 
 children above two or three under ten years of age. 
 
 This and other modes of increasing the income of the poor, 
 by factitious means, beyond the fair remuneration for their 
 labour, or without the return of their labour, is only injurious, 
 as it begets indolence, prevents forethought, and tends to 
 reduce the spirit of independence into a habit of pauperism. 
 Let the man have subsistence, but only by earning it, or he 
 will become a burden upon the community. If the poor 
 think the rich insufferable, because they consume and in their 
 opinion do not produce, how much more are the poor so when 
 they expect food for themselves without earning it, and that 
 too at the expense of the rich. Surely the poor greatly 
 mistake, when they imagine that the rich are independent of 
 the poor. The frame of society is so constructed that each 
 portion depends upon the other; and by a happy combination 
 of interests, the whole machinery is kept in motion. The caso 
 is evident, if we suppose a poor man to be offered ten acres of 
 land to cultivate for himself. He objects instantly, saying, ‘ I 
 have no capital, and cannot cultivate it for want of such capital,’ 
 But the mutuality of the advantage is apparent and certain, 
 when the rich find the capital, and pay the poor for their 
 labour, which again repays for the outlay, and is productive of 
 benefit to both parties. Such advantage would, however, 
 soon he lost, if the rich sacrificed their capital, unless the poor 
 gained it, still retaining the casualness of rich and poor. To 
 both parties it is best to remain as they are, the rich equally 
 rich, without diminution of capital, and the poor as dependent 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 as ever upon the rich for employment. But if the rich are 
 to pay the poor more than they ought to do, or for doing 
 nothing, the consumption will continue; yet, because then 
 neither would produce, both would be eventually involved in 
 the same calamity. Let employment be found for the la¬ 
 bourer at a fair remuneration, by which he will be rescued 
 from the necessity of depending upon the poor-rate in any 
 shape, and it will tend to his own advantage ultimately, as well 
 as to that of his employer. 
 
 To this point it will be necessary for me on some future day 
 to request your Lordship’s attention. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. 
 
21 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 I come now, my Lord, to a very important part of this 
 interesting subject, and must beg to premise, that my intention 
 is only to elicit truth and fact, not to gratify any controver¬ 
 sial feeling, much less to indulge a wish to give offence to 
 the individual who is chiefly connected with my remarks, 
 the Rev. J. T. Becher; who is respected by none more than 
 by myself, and from whom, during a correspondence on the 
 subject of Friendly Societies, I received much polite attention. 
 The good sense and candour of that gentleman already assure 
 me of his forbearance while I attempt to examine some por¬ 
 tions of his evidence, particularly as we are not consentaneous ; 
 and the errors I may commit, will, I hope, be pardoned, with 
 his accustomed liberality. 
 
 The remedies for the evils connected with the Poor Laws 
 in agricultural districts, Mr. Becher considers to be Work- 
 houses and Friendly Societies; the former to be made repulsive, 
 and the latter attractive to the poor : and, to give evidence, 
 adduces the comparison he has instituted between Notting¬ 
 hamshire and Sussex. To effect a nearer approach towards a 
 relative equalization between the amounts of expenditure for 
 the two counties, Mr. Becher proposes to raise the price of 
 wages in the latter to the same level as those given in the 
 former county. To this opinion I must confess myself by no 
 means a convert; and fear that if it were practised, the result 
 would be ruinous. Neither do I perceive that it would elevate 
 
22 
 
 the labourer above the condition of a pauper, but fix him 
 in it permanently; for I conceive, my Lord, that the poor 
 man is equally pauperized if the usual price of wages given 
 in a district be eight shillings, and the farmer give him 
 twelve, as if he were to receive eight shillings from the pocket 
 of the farmer, and four shillings from a fund raised by all the 
 farmers collectively in the same parish; the labourer receives 
 the same sum of four shillings more than his fellow-labourers 
 obtain in the same district, let it be called by what name it 
 may, or gathered from whatever source; and is a pensioner to 
 that amount.* 
 
 In a county like Nottinghamshire the price of agricultural 
 labour will always be high, because of the draught made upon the 
 labourers’ families for the supply of hands to work in the manu¬ 
 factories ; and the farmer will not object to give high prices for 
 labour, because the additional resources derived by the labour¬ 
 er’s family from the manufacturer, help him to keep aloof from 
 the workhouse, and the farmer has less poor-rate to pay. But 
 surely there cannot be any necessity for stimulating the poor 
 by a supply of wages more than requisite for their reasonable 
 support, as this must prove to be more or less burdensome 
 upon the farmer by an increase of his expenditure. Would it 
 not be better, my Lord, to reduce the price paid for labour in 
 Nottinghamshire as low as is reasonably consistent with the 
 great advantage to be derived to labourers’ families by a supply 
 of work from the manufactories, and enable the labourer to 
 obtain the remainder by some extra means, such as a portion 
 of land, to be cultivated by himself, for his own profit ? The 
 farmer would have a fairer chance, and the landlord would be 
 more secure of his rent, without reduction. We must not 
 suppose that a different result would ensue from that which 
 Mr. Becher aims to accomplish; for the extra profit w'ould 
 equally enable the labourer to maintain the payment of his 
 
 * The same argument is equally sound if we exchange the word district 
 for county, and again, the word county for kingdom. 
 
23 
 
 deposits as constantly to his friendly society, as if he procured 
 the means to do so from extra pay for his labour. 
 
 Under such circumstances, however, as exist in Nottingham¬ 
 shire, to confront that county with Sussex does not appear to 
 me, I must acknowledge, quite just or fair; for though Mr. 
 Becher asserts that he has taken the agricultural population 
 alone in both counties , when making his calculations, yet, 
 according to his own account, the relative position of the 
 two counties with regard to their population , and the earnings 
 of that population , is so opposite as almost to prevent the 
 possibility of obtaining any correct inference by placing them 
 in apposition, and by compelling them to participate in a con- 
 simility they do not physically possess.* 
 
 * Taking the agricultural families in Nottinghamshire at 13,664, and 
 in Sussex at 21,920, as Mr. Becher represents, at pages 296 and 297 of the 
 Evidence, and the families employed in trade in Nottinghamshire at 21,832, 
 and in Sussex at 15,463, I would propose the following calculations. 
 
 If in Nottinghamshire 13,664 be equal to 21,920 in Sussex, what ought 
 the number of families employed in trade to be in Sussex, supposing they 
 are in Nottinghamshire 21,832?—and the quotient is 35,023 ; whereas there 
 are in Sussex only 15,463 families employed in trade; 
 
 Or thus, 13,664 : 21,920 : : 21,832 : 35,023. 
 
 And if we give to every agricultural family wages at 10s. per week, and to 
 every family employed in trade 20s. per week, the case will stand thus: 
 
 In Nottinghamshire: £. 
 
 Agricultural, 13,664 at 10s. 6,832 
 Trade . . . 21,832 at 20s. 21,832 
 
 28,664 
 
 In Sussex : £. 
 
 Agricultural, 21,920 at 10s. 10,960 
 Trade . . . 35,023 at 20s. 35,023 
 
 45,983 
 
 £45,983 X 52 weeks, gives £2,391,116 for the year in Sussex; 
 
 £28,664 X 52 weeks, gives 1,490,528 for the year in Nottinghamshire; 
 
 forming a difference of £ 900,588, which Sussex ought to have earned 
 if she is to be considered as being on an equality with Nottinghamshire. 
 
 But as Sussex had only 15,463 families employed in trade, the ac¬ 
 count is very different, for her 21,920 agricultural families earned, at 
 
 10s. each.£10,960 
 
 and her 15,463 families in trade earned, at 20s. each, 15,463 
 
 making together .... £26,423; or, for the 
 
 year, £26,423 X 52 weeks, — £1,373,996, which deducted from £1,490,528, 
 the amount which Nottinghamshire earned for the year at the same ratio as 
 
24 
 
 To institute any comparison may, at tlie first glance, seem 
 to be unimportant; yet the result of the investigation will 
 
 is represented above, leaves the earnings of Sussex less than those of Not¬ 
 tinghamshire hy £116,532; and this sum, added to £900,588, makes Sussex 
 worse than Nottinghamshire by £1,017,120, because, when compared with 
 Nottinghamshire, she has not had her complement of families occupied in 
 trade, hy 19,560. 
 
 If we reverse this calculation, and take the families employed in trade in 
 Sussex at 15,463, and in Nottinghamshire at 21,832, what ought the agri¬ 
 cultural families to he in Nottinghamshire, provided they are in Sussex 
 21,920?—and the quotient is 30,948, instead of 13,664; 
 
 Or thus, 15,463 : 21,832 : : 21,920 : 30,948. 
 
 The case will therefore now stand in this manner : 
 
 In Sussex: £. 
 
 In Trade, at 20-s. each . . . 15,463 
 Agricultural, 21,920 at 10s. 10,960 
 
 26,423 
 
 In Nottinghamshire : £. 
 
 In Trade at 20s. each . . . 21,832 
 Agricultural, 30,948 at 10s. 15,474 
 
 37,306 
 
 £37,306 x 52 weeks, gives £1,949,912 for the year in Nottinghamshire ; 
 £26,423 x 52 weeks, gives 1,373,996 for the year in Sussex; 
 
 forming a difference of £ 575,916, which Nottinghamshire ought to 
 have earned if she is to be compared with Sussex. 
 
 But as Nottinghamshire had only 13,664 families employed in agriculture, 
 the account is very different, for her 13,664 agricultural families earned, at 
 
 10s. each.£ 6,832 
 
 and her 21,832 families in trade earned, at 20s. each, 21,832 
 
 making together .... £28,664; or, for the 
 
 year £28,664 x 52 weeks = £1,490,528 
 
 from which . 1,373,996 being deducted, 
 
 leaves . . £ 116,532, and shows that Nottinghamshire, 
 
 to he equal with Sussex in her population, and in their earnings, ought to 
 have received £116,532 + £575,916 = £692,448 more than she has done. 
 
 Once more: If the agricultural families in Sussex be 21,920, and in 
 Nottinghamshire 13,664, what ought the families employed in trade to be 
 in Nottinghamshire, provided they are in Sussex 15,463?—and the quotient 
 is 9,630 instead of 21,832. 
 
 Or thus, 24,920 : 13,664 : : 15,463 : 9,630. 
 
 Then the state of the case will he, 
 
 In Sussex: £. In Nottinghamshire: £. 
 
 21,920 Agricultural, at 10s. 10,960 13,664 Agricultural, at 10s. 6,832 
 
 15,463 in Trade . . at 20s. 15,463 9,630 in Trade . . at 20s. 9,630 
 
 26,423 
 
 16,462 
 
25 
 
 exhibit the difficulty of drawing the conclusion Mr. Becher 
 has done, that Sussex only requires to give her agricultural 
 labourers higher wages. Most cordially I agree with him in 
 
 £26,423 x 52 weeks, gives £1,373,996 for the year in Sussex ; 
 
 £16,462 X 52 weeks, gives 856,021 for the year in Nottinghamshire ; 
 
 making a difference of £ 517,975, which Sussex would have gained 
 more than Nottinghamshire, if Nottinghamshire had not had more families 
 employed in trade than her proportion. 
 
 But as Nottinghamshire had 21,832 families employed in trade, the 
 account is very different, for her 13,664 agricultural families earned, 
 
 at 1 Os.£6,832 
 
 and her 21,832 families employed in trade earned 21,832 
 
 forming together . £28,664; or, for the 
 
 year, £28,664 x 52 = £1,490,528 
 
 from which 856,021 being deducted, 
 
 -leaves . . £634,507, which, added to £517,975, exhibits Not¬ 
 
 tinghamshire in the receipt of £1,152,482 more than Sussex, as the earnings 
 of her agricultural population, and evinces the impossibility of forming a 
 correct opinion of the relative condition of the two counties, if, as Mr. 
 Becher represents, we are to take only their agricultural population. 
 
 Let us, then, take the agricultural labourers' 1 families alone in Notting¬ 
 hamshire at 7,974, and in Sussex at 12,790, being, in both cases, 7-12ths of 
 the families employed in agriculture, and the families employed in trade in 
 Nottinghamshire at 21,832, and in Sussex at 15,463, and give to each agri¬ 
 cultural labourer’s family wages at 10-s. per week, and to the families occu¬ 
 pied in trade 20s. each per week, the account will stand thus : 
 
 In Nottinghamshire : £. 
 
 Agricultural, 7,974 at 10s. 3,987 
 In Trade . . 21,832 at 20s. 21,832 
 
 In Sussex: £. 
 
 Agricultural, 12,790 at 10s. 6,395 
 In Trade . . 15,463 at 20s. 15,463 
 
 25,819 21,858 
 
 Deduct . . . 21,858 
 
 and there are . £ 3,961 gained per week in Nottinghamshire 
 more than in Sussex, which, multiplied by 52, amounts to £205,972 in 
 the year. 
 
 This calculation, however, is made on the supposition that the agricultural 
 labourers' families in Sussex receive the same* wages as similar families do 
 in Nottinghamshire. If the 12,790 agricultural labourers' families residing 
 in Sussex were resident in Nottinghamshire, and gained, each family, 2s. 6d. 
 per week more than the 10s., for the year it would amount to £83,122; and 
 if they gained 5s. per week more than the 10s., the amount would be 
 £166,244. But, let us say that only those agricultural labourers' families 
 
26 
 
 wishing to see Sussex and the counties purely agricultural in 
 a more prosperous condition, and able to deposit in a friendly 
 society as the index of their prosperity; I cannot desire, how¬ 
 ever, to have it effected by the same means. 
 
 To a question whether an addition to the price of labour 
 in Sussex will effect it ? I presume to reply, that it certainly 
 will not, to the degree which Mr. Becher anticipates. For 
 if the 12,790 agricultural labourers’ families who reside in 
 Sussex should receive each 5s. per week additional wages 
 during the whole year, the total amount would be £166,244; 
 and if this sum were applied as an offset against £235,745, the 
 amount expended upon her paupers, making a balance of 
 £69,501, Sussex would descend, it is true, to an equality with 
 Nottinghamshire in the amount paid out of the levies raised 
 for the relief of her poor, being for the same year, £69,137 : 
 but her poor would not be depositors in a savings bank, nor in 
 
 which do actually reside in Nottinghamshire are thus advantaged, then it 
 will appear that 7,974 families at 2s. Qd. per week, is £ 51,818 
 
 at 5s. per week, is 103,636 
 
 at 7s. 6d. per week, is 155,454 
 
 at 10s. per week, is 207,272 
 
 And Mr. Becher says, that many labourers' families in Nottinghamshire do 
 earn 20s. per week, and in some cases more. Yet, should the statement be 
 calculated within what I presume every one must allow to be reasonable 
 limits, we shall find the inference very different from that drawn by 
 Mr. Becher. 
 
 If to the amount of 42205,972, received for labour more in Nottingham¬ 
 shire than in Sussex, as shown on the other side, which, after all, must be far 
 below the fact, since the mechanics receive very much more than 20s. per week 
 for each family, and the labourers’ families much more than 10s. per week; 
 yet, if to the above amount we add only the 2s. Qd. per week each for the 7,974 
 agricultural labourers' families, we have £205,972 -f-£51,818 = £257,790. 
 Taking then the poor-rate in Sussex, for the year ending March, 1829, at 
 £235,745, and in Nottinghamshire at £69,137, there is a difference against 
 Sussex of £166,608; which, deducted from £257,790, leaves £91,182 re¬ 
 ceived for the maintenance of the poor in Nottinghamshire more than in 
 Sussex. And if we take the difference in the price of agricultural labour 
 alone to be 5s. instead of 2s. Qd., it leaves a balance of advantage in favour 
 of Nottinghamshire over Sussex of £143,000 annually. 
 
27 
 
 a friendly society, which seems to be the criterion of prosperity 
 at present distinguishing the manufacturing from the agricul¬ 
 tural, or, more correctly, the northern from the southern 
 counties. Yet, my Lord, I would maintain that the amount 
 of the difference of 5s. per week in the price of wages between 
 Sussex and Nottinghamshire, would not balance the difference 
 of the amount of the poor-rate if that difference of wages were 
 actually paid to each agricultural labourer’s family, unless it 
 can be proved that such families are now in the constant habit 
 of receiving from the collections made for the relief of the poor 
 an amount equal to such difference of wages, and are the only 
 persons who receive relief. 
 
 That the amount of the difference of wages given in the two 
 counties, if paid by Sussex to her labourers, will effect the re¬ 
 moval of her calamity, is the sentiment of Mr. Becher, is fairly 
 conclusible from that gentleman’s observations at page 307 
 of the Evidence. “ I could pauperize Southwell in a very 
 short time, by pursuing the course adopted in some dis¬ 
 tricts. We have 217 able-bodied labourers in Southwell; 
 now, supposing we were to reduce their weekly wages from 
 12 s., the average rate which they now receive, to 8s. a week, or 
 from 13s. to 9s. a week, and we were to take 4s. a week from 
 the wages of each man, that being £10. 8s. a year, we should 
 pay £2,256. 16s. additional poor-rates; then we should cry 
 out that we were aggrieved with poor-rates. I contend that 
 such outpayments are not poor-rates according to the legiti¬ 
 mate interpretation of the act of the 43rd of Elizabeth. We 
 should defraud the labourer of his hire, and impose a tax upon 
 the wages of the industrious labourer or the unmarried man, 
 for the support of the idle mail or of the man that is oppressed 
 with a family.” 
 
 Now I do not understand why it may not be proved that 
 the £2,256. 16s. paid by Southwell is so much poor-rate really 
 and truly paid by the farmers to their labourers under the 
 name of wages. For if the magistrates did not induce the 
 
28 
 
 farmers to give an average of 1 2s. per week wages, would the 
 farmers spontaneously give so much? And is there not at 
 Southwell, most probably, some interference with the price of 
 wages by the magistrates, so that the farmers know they must 
 give so much? and that the labourers know they must re¬ 
 ceive so much? and that if there be any attempt on the part 
 of the farmers to bargain for less, the labourers will not take 
 less, because the magistrates are supposed at least to sanction 
 it ? Then it is little short of a compulsory act, and whether it 
 be called wages, or be called 8s. wages and 4 s. head-money, or 
 allowance, or gratuity, or by any other name, yet such becomes 
 the fact, that it is nothing else than palpable poor-rate. 
 
 For the sake of raising an argument, I will concede to 
 the opinion of Mr. Becher, that if the farmers in the agri¬ 
 cultural districts would pay their labourers 1 2s. per week 
 each on an average, the whole year round, they would reduce 
 the rates, depauperize the poor, and increase the number of 
 depositors in friendly societies, only presuming that the farmers 
 could afford, out of their profits, without infringing upon their 
 capital, to pay the additional 4s. per week, with the further 
 privilege of an occasional portion of piece-work, and extra pay 
 in harvest; yet the question arises, Would it be wise to adopt 
 such plan ? But the consideration of this question I shall 
 for the present defer. 
 
 Believe me to remain, &c. 
 
29 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Before I proceed to reply to the query, ‘ Would it be wise 
 for Sussex and similarly burdened counties to adopt Mr. 
 Becher s recommendation, to give the labourers in agriculture 
 an average price of 1 2s. per week each?’ I may be excused, 
 I trust, for suspecting whether in point of fact Sussex has ad¬ 
 vanced in regular progression in the habit of pauperizing her 
 poor at a faster pace than Nottinghamshire; and I would 
 respectfully submit to your Lordship, that she has not; but 
 that, of the two counties, Nottinghamshire is after all the more 
 culpable. 
 
 Taking the average of the three years 1748, 1749, and 1750, 
 we find that Nottinghamshire paid to her paupers 4,37 51., and 
 Sussex to hers, 24,343/., and that in the year 1829, Notting¬ 
 hamshire’s poor-rates were 69,137/. Now, according to the 
 same proportion, let us calculate what Sussex ought to pay in 
 1829, and the quotient is 384,686/., whereas Sussex paid in 
 1829 only 235,745/., making a difference of 148,941/. 
 
 And if we reverse the statement, and inquire, if Sussex paid 
 24,343/., and Nottinghamshire only 4,375/., what ought Not¬ 
 tinghamshire to pay in 1829 when Sussex paid 235,745/. ?—and 
 the result of the calculation is 42,368/.; yet we find that Not¬ 
 tinghamshire paid in the same year 69,137/., or 26,769/. more 
 than she ought to have done, had she accelerated at only the 
 same ratio as Sussex. 
 
30 
 
 Again, if we take the whole of the sums paid annually in 
 both counties under the character of poor-rate, from 1813 to 
 1829 inclusive, we find that Nottinghamshire paid 1,338,912/., 
 and Sussex 4,454,549/. If then Nottinghamshire paid in 1813 
 88,013/., and Sussex 314,270/., what ought Sussex to pay, 
 supposing Nottinghamshire to have paid 1,338,912/.? and the 
 result is, 4,785,428/.; but as Sussex paid only 4,454,549/., she 
 has not paid so much by 330,879/. in the seventeen years as 
 she would have done provided she had kept pace with Notting¬ 
 hamshire in pauperization. Or in other words, pauperism has 
 accumulated in Nottinghamshire faster than in Sussex by more 
 than one-thirteenth, or by nearly 20,000/. per annum for the 
 last seventeen years. 
 
 Permit me to draw your Lordship’s attention to another 
 view of the subject. In 1748, 1749, and 1750, the average 
 expenditure for Nottinghamshire was 4,375/., and for Sussex 
 24,343/. If the 4,37 51. had increased so much, that from 1813 
 to 1829 it had swelled to 1,338,912/., what should Sussex have 
 paid during the same seventeen years, according to the same 
 proportion ? Then we have the case thus— 
 
 £4,375 : £1,338,912 : : £24,343 : £7,449,859. 
 
 Had Sussex, therefore, kept up to the heels of Nottingham¬ 
 shire, considering the relative situation of the two counties 
 eighty years ago, she would have paid in the seventeen years 
 2,995,310/. more than she has been called upon to pay. 
 
 It is curious to examine the two counties, with respect to 
 their poor-rates. There were paid— 
 
 
 In Nottinghamshire. 
 
 In Sussex. 
 
 Proportionate 
 
 difference. 
 
 In 1748 to 50 .... 
 
 . £ 4,375 . . 
 
 £ 24,343 
 
 . . 5.57 
 
 In 1776 the sums were 
 
 11,914 . . 
 
 54,734 
 
 . . 4.59 
 
 In 1783, 1784, and 1785 . 
 
 18,068 . . 
 
 72,878 
 
 . . 4.03 
 
 In 1803 . 
 
 44,223 . . 
 
 179,858 
 
 . . 4.00 
 
 In 1813 . 
 
 88,013 . . 
 
 314,270 
 
 . . 3.56 
 
 In 1829 . 
 
 . 69,137 . . 
 
 235,745 
 
 . . 3.40 
 
 From 1813 to 1829 inclusive 
 
 1,338,912 . . 
 
 4,454,549 
 
 . . 3.33 
 
31 
 
 By this calculation, it is conspicuous tliat Sussex while run¬ 
 ning side by side with Nottinghamshire for eighty years, has 
 been making a regular decrease in the amount of the cost of 
 the poor, when compared with Nottinghamshire. It would 
 almost seem as if there were a strife between the two counties, 
 which should he most successful in attempting to prevent the 
 increase of the burden occasioned by the poor-rates: and as 
 Sussex appears still to have the ’vantage of Nottinghamshire, 
 we may conclude that Sussex has fixed a drag to her wheel, 
 while Nottinghamshire is running unchecked in her progress, 
 and may yet arrive at the bottom of the hill before her com¬ 
 petitor for ruin.* 
 
 It may be well, my Lord, to inquire how some other of the 
 oppressed counties stand relatively with the two which exhibit 
 so much prominence in this comparison. 
 
 The Poor-rate in 1748 compared with 1829 and the proportionate difference. 
 
 In Essex. 
 
 £38,233 . 
 
 . . £262,215 . 
 
 . . 6.86 
 
 In Bucks. 
 
 17,139 . 
 
 . . 124,499 . 
 
 . . 7.26 
 
 In Oxford. 
 
 12,831 . 
 
 . . 123,399 . 
 
 . . 8.66 
 
 In Beds . 
 
 8,276 . 
 
 . . 77,554 . 
 
 . . 9.37 
 
 In Sussex. 
 
 24,343 . 
 
 . . 235,745 . 
 
 . . 9.68 
 
 In Notts. 
 
 4,375 . 
 
 . . 69,137 . 
 
 . . 15.80 
 
 In England and Wales . 
 
 689,971 . 
 
 . . 6,332,411 . 
 
 . . 9.17 
 
 * Certainly, if we take the last seven years up to March 1829, there has 
 been some degree of improvement. The totals for Nottinghamshire have 
 been £4:49,164, and for Sussex £1,639,106, bearing the proportion of 3.64, 
 but by no means of so great extent as to exhibit Nottinghamshire in a situa¬ 
 tion of such very considerable amelioration, as to render the expedient pro¬ 
 posed by Mr. Becher to increase the price of wages in Sussex to the same 
 level as they give in Nottinghamshire, at all advisable. 
 
 But as there seems to be some improvement for the last seven years, it may 
 be well to investigate it carefully. During the last seven years previous to 
 March 1829, the poor-rates in Nottinghamshire were £449,164, and in Sussex 
 £1,639,106. Then we have the following facts : 
 
 £449,164 divided by seven, gives an annual average of £64,166: and 
 £1,639,106 divided by seven, gives an annual average of £234,158. 
 
 The sum actually expended in Nottinghamshire, for the year ending 
 
32 
 
 That Sussex has increased but in a trifling ratio beyond 
 the average progression for the whole of England and Wales, 
 appears certain by this representation, while Nottinghamshire 
 has advanced very considerably, the difference between the two 
 counties being as 9 to 15. 
 
 Has then the population augmented in Nottinghamshire more 
 rapidly than in Sussex, by which some cause may be assigned 
 for this increased ratio of poor-rates in that county? No! 
 this is not the obvious cause, for in 1801 in Nottinghamshire 
 the population was 140,350, and in 1831, 225,400; and in 1801 
 in Sussex the population was 159,311, and in 1831, 272,300. 
 The proportions are, for Nottinghamshire an increase of 60 per 
 cent., but for Sussex 70 per cent, for the thirty years. 
 
 A comparative view of the two counties, in connexion with 
 their acreage , will, perhaps, be more favourable to Mr. Becher’s 
 opinion, that Nottinghamshire is worthy of being imitated by 
 Sussex. The subject is of so much interest to the country at 
 large, that I hope your Lordship will pardon me for obtruding 
 it upon your notice, and for endeavouring to exhibit it by 
 various calculations, for though I believe my conclusions are 
 correct, I shall be very chagrined to occupy so much of your 
 valuable time to examine my sentiments, if you can discover, 
 Sir, that I am a mere speculator. I do not pretend to an ac¬ 
 quaintance with the subject of so long standing as Mr. Becher’s, 
 yet, finding much dissatisfaction from a perusal of his calcula¬ 
 tions, and having given my opinion, upon oath, before the 
 Lords’ Committee, I think myself bound to detail at length the 
 ground for the sentiments I then expressed, and which sub¬ 
 sequent events have strongly confirmed. 
 
 March 1829, was £69,137, being £4,971 for that year above the average of 
 the last seven years, or .009=256?. per acre. 
 
 The sum Sussex really disbursed for the year ending March 1829 was 
 £235,745, being £1,587 only for that year above the average of the last 
 seven years, or .001=one farthing and two-tliirds of a farthing per acre. 
 
33 
 
 Taking then the acres in Nottinghamshire to be 535,680, 
 and in Sussex 936,320, the following comparisons may be in- 
 
 stituted, at different periods. 
 
 Total Rate. 
 £. 
 
 
 Rate per Acre. 
 £. s. d. 
 
 1748 to 1750 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 4,375 . 
 
 . .008 
 
 = 0 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 24,343 . 
 
 . .026 
 
 = 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 i 
 
 1776 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 11,914 . 
 
 . .022 
 
 = 0 
 
 0 
 
 5£ 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 54,734 . 
 
 . .058 
 
 = 0 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1783 to 1785 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 18,068 . 
 
 . .033 
 
 — 0 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 72,878 . 
 
 . .077 
 
 = 0 
 
 1 
 
 65 
 
 1803 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 . 44,223 . 
 
 . .082 
 
 = 0 
 
 1 
 
 7f 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 179,858 . 
 
 . .192 
 
 = 0 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 1813 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 88,013 . 
 
 . .164 
 
 = 0 
 
 3 
 
 3| 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 314,270 . 
 
 . .335 
 
 = 0 
 
 6 
 
 H 
 
 1829 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 . 69,137 . 
 
 . .129 
 
 = 0 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 235,745 . 
 
 . .251 
 
 = 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 i 
 
 1813 to 1829 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 . 1,338,912 . 
 
 . 2.494 
 
 = 2 
 
 9 10£ 
 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 4,454,549 . 
 
 . 4.754 
 
 = 4 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 1823 to 1829 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 . 449,164 . 
 
 . .837 
 
 = 0 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 Sussex. 1,639,106 . 
 
 The worst year in each county : 
 
 . 1.728 
 
 = 1 
 
 14 
 
 6 f 
 
 1817 
 
 Nottinghamshire . 
 
 . 108,362 . 
 
 . .202 
 
 = 0 
 
 4 
 
 0‘ 
 
 1818 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 331,070 . 
 
 . .353 
 
 = 0 
 
 7 
 
 Of 
 
 By examining the above calculations, we 
 
 discover that Not- 
 
 tinghamshire has advanced faster than Sussex in her parochial 
 expenditure for the last eighty years; for in 1748 Sussex paid 
 more than thrice as much as Nottinghamshire, and in 1829 not 
 quite double; for the seventeen years previous to 1829 not 
 quite double, and for the seven years previous to 1829 only a 
 little more than double. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Will your Lordship permit me to request your attention to 
 another view of the subject? It regards the division of the 
 total amount of poor-rate by the number of the population, as 
 Mr. Becher has done at pages 296 and 297 of the Evidence, and 
 is stated in the same manner. 
 
 Nottinghamshire : 
 
 £44,233, being the total expenditure of poor in 1803, by Parliamentary 
 report, divided by 140,350, total population in 1801, gives per head for 
 each person contained in the population . . . .315 or £0 6 3| 
 
 Sussex: 
 
 £178,858, being the total expenditure of poor in 1803, by Parliamentary 
 report, divided by 159,311, total population in 1801, gives per head for 
 each person contained in the population . . . 1.122 or £1 2 5\ 
 
 Again,—Nottinghamshire: 
 
 £87,574, total expenditure of poor in 1821, divided by 186,873, total po¬ 
 pulation in 1821, gives per head.469 or £0 9 4£ 
 
 Sussex: 
 
 £276,469, total expenditure of poor in 1821, divided by 233,019, total 
 population in 1821, gives per head.1.146 or £1 2 11 
 
 So that Nottinghamshire had increased from 6s. 3fd. to 
 9s. 4 \d., or 3s. 0 %d. per head, while Sussex had increased her 
 payments from 22s. 5\d. to 22s. 11 d., or only 5fJ. per head; 
 but if Sussex had advanced equally with Nottinghamshire, she 
 would have had to pay \l. 13s. 3-\d., or an addition of 10s. \3\d. 
 
 Once more,—Nottinghamshire : 
 
 £69,137, total expenditure of poor in 1829, divided by 225,400, total 
 
 population in 1831, gives per head.307 or £0 6 If 
 
 Sussex: 
 
 £235,745, total expenditure of poor in 1829, divided by 272,300, total 
 population in 1831, gives per head.866 or £0 17 3f 
 
 Nottinghamshire, therefore, has diminished since 1803 from 
 6s. ?)\d. to 6s. 1 \d., or 2 d. per head; while Sussex has reduced 
 her expenses from 22s. 5\d. to 17s. 3\d., or 5s. 1 \d. per head.* 
 
 * For a comparative view of all the counties of England, see Appendix (D). 
 
35 
 
 Should we endeavour to place the two counties in a comparison 
 at all approaching a correct estimate of their relative position, it 
 appears we must represent what they both have paid, first for 
 labour, then in rates. Nottinghamshire having 7,974 agricul¬ 
 tural labourers’ families, to whom we presume she has paid 12s. 
 per week in wages, or 246,768/. for the year, and having paid 
 69,137/. poor-rate, presenting a total of 315,905/., has incurred 
 an expense of 39/. 12s. 4 d. for each family. In Sussex the 
 agricultural labourers’ families are 12,790, which at 8s. a week 
 will amount in the year to 266,032/., and added to 235,745/. 
 poor-rate, exhibits a total of 501,717/., or 39/. 4s. 6d. per 
 family. Nottinghamshire has, therefore, paid 7s. 10 d. per 
 annum to each agricultural labourer’s family, or in the whole 
 3,123/. for the year, more than Sussex has to hers, sup¬ 
 posing the average amount of wages for the two counties to be 
 12s. and 8s. 
 
 It does then but little signify by what name it is called, for 
 Nottinghamshire is actually more burdened with the expense 
 of providing for her agricultural labouring poor than Sussex, 
 even excluding the advantages she possesses over Sussex from 
 having a large addition to their maintenance by occasional 
 supplies of work from her manufactures. Will it not then be 
 reasonable to recommend to Nottinghamshire to imitate the 
 practice of Sussex, until she has reduced her proportion to 
 the same state as it was in 1748? And then, but not till then, 
 will she be in a position to suggest or recommend to Sussex 
 what policy she ought to pursue for her own domestic govern¬ 
 ment. For what would have been the state of Nottingham¬ 
 shire, we may justly inquire, in the amount of her poor-rates 
 in proportion to other counties, if she had not given this exu¬ 
 berant portion of wages ? If, as Mr. Becher argues, Notting¬ 
 hamshire had paid only 8s. wages, she would have been obliged 
 to pay the other four shillings as poor-rate, then we may add 
 the 4s. per week given to each agricultural labourer’s family, 
 
 d 2 
 
36 
 
 amounting for the year to 82,2561., to 69,137/. the amount paid 
 in 1829, forming a total of 151,393/.; and being as 36 to 1, 
 compared with what the poor cost her in 1748, or four times 
 what Sussex and all England and Wales paid at the same 
 periods. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, think that Sussex is equally skilful with 
 Nottinghamshire in the art of pauperization: and concluding 
 your Lordship will coincide with me, 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. 
 
 P.S. Before, however, I dismiss this part of the subject, I 
 request to he permitted to refer to a matter of fact. In the 
 abstract appended to the report of Lord John Russell’s Com¬ 
 mittee in 1824, it will be seen what was the amount of wages 
 for the two counties at that period. I have placed the two 
 counties together.* It is evident that the price of wages in 
 Nottinghamshire was 10s. per week as a general price, and in 
 Sussex about 9s. Now we shall conclude that if Notting¬ 
 hamshire has raised her price of wages to 12s., she has dimi¬ 
 nished her poor-rates proportionally, if Mr. Becher’s principle 
 be correct; but the fact is, that the poor-rates for Notting¬ 
 hamshire for the year ending March 1824 were 58,894/., and 
 for the year ending March 1829, 69,137/. This may he counted 
 accidental. What then is the case with Sussex ? Her expen¬ 
 diture in 1824 was 241,073/., and in 1829, 235,745/. So that 
 one county has augmented her poor-rates with an increase of 
 wages, and the other has produced an opposite effect, by re¬ 
 versing her conduct; still taking it for granted that the prices 
 were 12s. and 8s, 
 
 * See Appendix (Ej. 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 In immediate connexion with this part of the subject, an 
 inquiry may arise with regard to the proportion of oilier 
 northern counties , Nottinghamshire alone having been hitherto 
 adduced to illustrate the condition of Sussex. I have, there¬ 
 fore, selected Lancashire. The following tabular view will 
 exhibit the two counties in the same light as I have already 
 attempted with Sussex and Nottinghamshire. 
 
 There were paid, 
 
 Nottinghamshire. 
 
 Lancashire. 
 
 Proportionate 
 
 difference. 
 
 In 1748 to 1750, an average of . 
 
 £ 4,375 . . 
 
 £ 21,236 
 
 . . 4.85 
 
 In 1776 . 
 
 11,914 . . 
 
 52,373 
 
 . . 4.45 
 
 In 1783 to 1785, an average of . 
 
 18,068 . . 
 
 73,364 
 
 . . 4.05 
 
 In 1803 . 
 
 44,223 . . 
 
 148,282 
 
 . . 3.35 
 
 In 1813 . 
 
 88,013 . . 
 
 306,797 
 
 . . 3.64 
 
 In 1829 . 
 
 69,137 . . 
 
 260,891 
 
 . . 3.78 
 
 From 1813 to 1829 .... 
 
 1,338,912 . . 
 
 4,665,106 
 
 . . 3.49 
 
 If then in 1748 Nottinghamshire expended 4,375/. and Lan¬ 
 cashire 21,236/., what ought Lancashire to have disbursed in 
 the seventeen years from 1813 to 1829, provided Nottingham¬ 
 shire’s poor cost her 1,338,912/. ? 
 
 The following are the proportions:— 
 
 £4,375 : £21,236 :: £1,338,912 : £6,499,002; but as 
 Lancashire incurred an expense of only 4,665,106/., she had 
 not accelerated so fast, as if she had kept pace with Notting¬ 
 hamshire, by 1,833,996/. 
 
38 
 
 It would, however, be more correct to compare Sussex with 
 Lancashire. 
 
 There were paid, Lancashire. 
 
 In 1748 to 1750 . . . £ 21,236 
 
 In 1776 . 52,373 
 
 In 1783, 1784, and 1785 73,364 
 
 In 1803 . 148,282 
 
 In 1813 . 306,797 
 
 In 1829 . 260,891 
 
 From 1813 to 1829 . .4,665,106 
 
 Proportions. 
 
 Sussex. More. Less. 
 
 . £ 24,343 . £ 3,107 
 . 54,734 . 2,361 
 
 . 72,878 .£ 486 
 
 . 179,858 . 31,586 
 
 . 314,270 . 7,473 
 
 . 235,745 . 25,146 
 
 .4,454,549 . 210,557 
 
 If then in 1748 Sussex paid 24,343/. and Lancashire only 
 21,236/., what ought Lancashire to have paid from 1813 to 
 1829, as Sussex paid 4,454,549/. ? The quotient is 3,885,995/.; 
 but as Lancashire paid 4,665,106/., she had increased 779,111/. 
 more than she would have done, had she not accelerated faster 
 than Sussex. Should we reverse the statement, and inquire, if 
 in 1748 Lancashire paid 21,236/. and Sussex 24,343/., what 
 ought Sussex to pay from 1813 to 1829, if Lancashire paid 
 4,665,106/. ? The result is 5,347,649/.; but as Sussex paid 
 only 4,454,549/., she has saved more than Lancashire by 
 893,100/. in seventeen vears. 
 
 Again: if we take another guilty county, for instance, the 
 county of Bedford , and compare her with her northern sisters, 
 Nottinghamshire and Lancashire, we shall see what justice 
 there is in the accusation brought against her. 
 
 There were paid, 
 
 Nottinghamsh. 
 
 Bedfordsh. 
 
 Lancash. 
 
 Hertfordsh. 
 
 In 1748 to 1750 . 
 
 . £ 4,375 . 
 
 £ 8,276 
 
 . £ 21,236 
 
 . £16,452 
 
 In 1776 . . . 
 
 11,914 . 
 
 16,663 
 
 . 52,373 
 
 25,486 
 
 In 1783 to 1785 . 
 
 18,068 . 
 
 20,977 
 
 . 73,364 
 
 . 32,779 
 
 In 1803 . . . 
 
 . 44,223 . 
 
 36,895 
 
 . 148,282 
 
 . 56,381 
 
 In 1813 . . . 
 
 . 88,013 . 
 
 61,273 
 
 . 306,797 
 
 . 76,701 
 
 In 1829 . . . 
 
 . 69,137 . 
 
 77,554 
 
 . 260,891 
 
 91,796 
 
 From 1813 to 1829 
 
 . 1,338,912 . 
 
 1,156,998 
 
 . 4,665,106 
 
 . 1,522,753 
 
 Supposing Nottinghamshire to have paid 4,375/. and Bed¬ 
 fordshire 8,276/., what ought Bedfordshire to have expended 
 
39 
 
 from 1813 to 1829, seeing Nottinghamshire paid 1,338,912/.? 
 The quotient is 2,532,7 621., or more than Bedfordshire did 
 pay by 1,375,764/., as her expenditure was 1,156,998/. If 
 Bedfordshire paid 8,276/. in 1748, and Lancashire 21,236/., 
 what ought Lancashire to have disbursed from 1813 to 1829, 
 since Bedfordshire paid 1,156,998/.? The calculation exhi¬ 
 bits a quotient amounting to 2,968,343/. So that Lancashire 
 has disbursed more than she ought to have done by 1,696,763/., 
 remembering her position in relation to Bedfordshire eighty 
 years back. 
 
 I have added the county of Herts, in which your Lordship 
 feels much interested, and which holds rather a peculiar posi¬ 
 tion with relation to Nottinghamshire. The agricultural fami¬ 
 lies in Hertfordshire are 13,485, and in Notts 13,664, and the 
 agricultural labourers’ families 7,866 and 7,974. Yet, not¬ 
 withstanding this similarity, it is observable that the amount of 
 poor-rates paid by Hertfordshire, for the average of the three 
 years 1748, 1749, and 1750, was very nearly four times more 
 than it was at the same period in Nottinghamshire. With an 
 equal agricultural population, we may presume that Hertford¬ 
 shire still pays nearly four times what Nottinghamshire dis¬ 
 burses. 
 
 If then Nottinghamshire paid 4,375/. and Hertfordshire 
 16,452/., and for seventeen years Nottinghamshire’s poor cost 
 1,338,912/., what ought Hertfordshire to have paid? The reply 
 is 5,062,333/.; but from this sum, when we deduct 1,522,753/. 
 the amount Hertfordshire did pay, we have left the enormous 
 balance of 3,539,580/. And if we reverse it thus:— 
 
 £16,452 : £4,375 : : £1,522,753 : £404,938, instead of 
 1,338,912/.; so that if Nottinghamshire had retained her position 
 in relation to Hertfordshire, she would have had to expend 
 only 404,938/., whereas the fact is, she paid 1,338,912/. 
 
 To keep the poor-rates so low as has been done in Hertford¬ 
 shire, if we consult the plan pursued in Nottinghamshire of 
 giving an average of 12s. weekly wages, and that this prac- 
 
40 
 
 tice is the cause why her poor-rates are so low, it is but fair to 
 conclude that in Hertfordshire 24 s. at least have been given as 
 wages to the labourers in agriculture. The fact, however, is, 
 as your Lordship very well knows, that the evidence of that 
 much respected clergyman, the Rev. F. J. Faithful, was correct, 
 when he stated before the Committee that the wages given to 
 labourers who work in the parish of Hatfield, range from 9$. 
 to 1 2s. per week.* 
 
 Fearing I may be too prolix, it is with reluctance I find I 
 cannot quite dismiss this subject, for I perceive that another 
 gentleman, who gave evidence before the Lords’ Committee, 
 has been, I apprehend, deceived by the appearances of the 
 case without investigating the facts of it. Permit me then to 
 solicit your Lordship to peruse the calculation made by Mr. 
 Slaney, at the foot of page 195 and at the head of page 196 of 
 the Evidence, where he compares eight counties conducted on 
 what he terms a good system, with eight on what he calls a bad 
 system. It is as follows:— 
 
 “ Comparison of eight counties on good system and eight on bad. 
 
 “ North Counties . . 
 
 “ Eight S. Counties . 
 
 "York, E. R. 
 .... N. R. 
 .... W. R. 
 
 • l 
 
 V 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 Westmoreland, 
 
 Cumberland, 
 
 N orthumberland, 
 Durham, 
 
 Kent, 
 
 Sussex, 
 
 Surrey, 
 
 I Oxford, 
 Wilts, 
 Berks, 
 Norfolk, 
 ^Dorset, 
 
 Population, 2,070,366. 
 Poor-rate, 754,500/. 
 
 / 
 
 Population, 2,037,665. 
 
 ^Poor-rate, 1,511,699/. 
 
 Double, with same popula¬ 
 tion. 
 
 * And is there not another fact evident in this case, which I shall have 
 hereafter occasion to notice, that the higher wages are raised, the larger in 
 proportion will be the amount of the collections for the poor? which is the 
 reverse of Mr. Becher’s conclusion. 
 
41 
 
 “Proportion of cost of poor per bead in population, taking year 1825, and 
 population return of 1821, 
 
 for 12 southern counties, with scale and bad system. 16s. Qd. per head. 
 12 northern, and good system.6s. 6c?. per head. 
 
 Now, my Lord, Mr. Slaney does not state why he has not 
 taken the counties he had enumerated, nor what counties he 
 has included in his calculation. It is, therefore, for me to take 
 the counties Mr. Slaney has named, together with their popu¬ 
 lation and poor-rate. 
 
 The poor-rate of 754,490?. for the northern counties bears a proportion to 
 their population of 2,070,366, of 7s. 35 c?. per head. 
 
 The poor-rate of 1,511,699?. bears a proportion to the population of 
 2,037,665 for the southern counties, of 14s. 10c?. per head. But this is 
 not so great a disproportion as 6s. Qd. is to 16s. 6c?. 
 
 If we take the same population of 1821 in the eight northern 
 counties, and inquire what proportion the rates for those coun¬ 
 ties bore eighty years ago, the result is 7 d. per head, and for 
 the eight southern counties Is. 10c?. per head; or, in other 
 words, the eight northern counties have augmented their lates 
 at a ratio of twelve and a half, and the eight southern counties 
 at a ratio of only eight: for 7 c?. xl2^ is=7s. 3|r?., and Is. 10 d. 
 
 x8 is = 14s. 8c?. 
 
 It may be well to place the calculation in the same order 
 Mr. Becher has done, only at different periods. 
 
 The eight northern counties : 
 
 £517,957, total expenditure for poor in 1803, divided by 1,520,266, total 
 
 population in 1801, gives per head.340=6s. 9\d. 
 
 The eight southern counties : 
 
 £1,054,065, total expenditure for poor in 1803, divided by 1,528,610, total 
 population in 1801, gives per head.689= 13s. d\d. 
 
 Again,—The eight northern counties: 
 
 £834,882, total expenditure for poor in 1829, divided by 2,357,800, total 
 
 population in 1831, gives per head.. lc?. 
 
 The eight southern counties : 
 
 £1,580,546, total expenditure of poor in 1829, divided by 2,323,300, total 
 population in 1831, gives per head.680= 13s. 7\d . 
 
42 
 
 It is, therefore, conspicuous that the bad system in the 
 southern counties has diminished the expenditure at the rate 
 of %\d. per head since 1803, and the northern counties under a 
 good system have increased their disbursements 3±d. per head, 
 or, in other terms, the northern counties have paid more than 
 their own relative increase of population by 34,384/. in 1829; 
 and the eight southern counties have not paid so much as their 
 own relative increase by 21,781/. 
 
 A comparison of the rates, with the acreage which is a fixed, 
 rather than with the population, which is a fluctuating criterion, 
 will however afford a more correct view of the subject. 
 
 The acreage of the eight northern counties I take to be 8,884,480 
 and of the eight southern counties .... 6,234,880 
 
 The poor-rate for the eight northern counties 80 years back was . <£59,890 
 and for the eight southern counties at the same time . 187,408 
 
 The northern counties were therefore rated .006 or 1 \d. per acre. 
 
 and the southern counties . . .030 or 7%d. per acre. 
 
 The poor-rate for the eight northern counties in March, 1826, was j£ 754,490 
 and for the eight southern counties at the same time 1,511,699 
 
 The northern counties were therefore rated . .084 or Is. 8 \d. per acre. 
 
 and the southern counties . . . .242 or 45. 10 d. per acre. 
 
 From which we are compelled to draw the following in¬ 
 ferences ; that, the eight northern counties have increased 14 
 times, as Is. 8 \d, is 14 times 1 \d .; and the eight southern 
 counties have increased only 8 times, as 4s. 10 d. is scarcely 8 
 times 7 \d. } and that, the terms bad and good system, must be 
 respectively misapplied by Mr. Slaney, until the exact position 
 of the counties of England, with respect to the poor-rates, can 
 be ascertained previously to the year 1750, as since that time the 
 southern counties have not offended equally with the northern, 
 and that other remedies must be applied to the southern dis- 
 
43 
 
 tricts, than those proposed from the north for imitation in the 
 south. 
 
 And I suppose that it is not an accidental conclusion in the 
 mind of Mr. Slaney, for at page 192, in speaking of the 
 southern counties, he says, “ where alone the evil is great,” 
 and at page 199, Mr. Slaney asserts that “ in the southern 
 counties the rates have been most increased, and that in the 
 manufacturing districts there is little increase of rate.” A 
 tabular form will exhibit the facts of the case; by which it 
 will appear that the increase in the northern counties has been 
 almost double of that in the southern counties; namely, as 
 14 to 8 * 
 
 * The eight northern counties in 1748 and in 1829, with their difference. 
 
 York, E.£ 4,110 . . £ 98,011 . . 23.60 
 
 Do. N. 5,581 . . 80,322 . . 14.39 
 
 Do. W. 20,218 . . 263,362 . . 13.02 
 
 Lincoln. 14,790 . . 171,565 . . 11.60 
 
 Westmorland . . . 1,802 . . 24,793 . . 13.75 
 
 Cumberland .... 2,450 . . 43,784 . . 17.87 
 
 Northumberland . . . 3,796 . . 72,275 . . 19.04 
 
 Durham. 7,143 . . 80,770 . . 11.30 
 
 Divided by 8 /114.57 
 gives an average of . . 14.32 
 
 The eight southern counties in 1748 and in 1829, with their difference. 
 
 Kent 
 
 .£ 41,997 . 
 
 . £ 340,525 . . 
 
 8.10 
 
 Sussex . 
 
 . 24,343 . 
 
 . 235,745 . . 
 
 9.68 
 
 Surrey . 
 
 . 26,598 . 
 
 243,452 . . 
 
 9.15 
 
 Oxford . 
 
 .12,831 . 
 
 123,399 . . 
 
 9.61 
 
 Wilts . 
 
 . 22,938 . 
 
 173,480 . . 
 
 7.56 
 
 Berks . 
 
 .15,971 . 
 
 105,624 . . 
 
 6.62 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 . 30,464 . 
 
 . 275,859 . . 
 
 9.05 
 
 Dorset . 
 
 . 12,266 . 
 
 82,462 . . 
 
 6.72 
 
 
 
 Divided by 8 
 
 / 66.49 
 
 
 gives 
 
 an average of . . 
 
 8.31 
 
44 
 
 The amount of difference may be seen by a comparison of 
 the expenditure of the counties at a more recent period.* 
 
 The assertion of Mr. Slaney is, therefore, correct, that the 
 increase in the northern counties is very little: but he is very 
 far from being equally correct, when he says that the increase 
 has been most in the south, for the southern counties have 
 diminished the actual amount of their expenditure since 1813 
 to the extent of 208,608/., and if we omit the West Riding 
 of Yorkshire, the eight northern counties will have increased 
 their expenses by 66,668/. instead of 1,917/. 
 
 But in this part of the subject it is possible I may have 
 mistaken the exact meaning of Mr. Slaney, for he says, “ in 
 
 the manufacturing districts there 
 
 is little 
 
 increase of rate. 
 
 * The eight northern counties in 1813 
 
 
 and in 1829. 
 
 York, E. . . . 
 
 . £ 83,752 
 
 • • • 
 
 . £98,011 
 
 Do. N. . . . 
 
 70,861 
 
 • • • 
 
 80,322 
 
 Do. W. . . . 
 
 . 328,113 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 263,362 
 
 Lincoln . . . 
 
 129,343 
 
 • • • 
 
 171,565 
 
 Westmorland . . 
 
 22,338 
 
 • • • 
 
 24,793 
 
 Cumberland . . 
 
 44,985 
 
 • • • 
 
 43,784 
 
 Northumberland . 
 
 72,821 
 
 • * • 
 
 72,275 
 
 Durham . . . 
 
 81,752 
 
 • • • 
 
 80,770 
 
 
 £832,965 
 
 
 £834,882 
 
 
 
 Deduct 
 
 . 832,965 
 
 
 
 Increase £ 1,917 
 
 The eight southern counties in 1813 
 
 
 and in 1829. 
 
 Kent .... 
 
 . £ 317,990 
 
 • * » 
 
 . £ 340,525 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 . 314,270 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 235,745 
 
 Surrey .... 
 
 . 217,757 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 243,452 
 
 Oxford .... 
 
 143,108 
 
 • • • 
 
 123,399 
 
 Wilts .... 
 
 . 234,352 
 
 • • • 
 
 173,480 
 
 Berks .... 
 
 . 160,872 
 
 • • • 
 
 105,624 
 
 Norfolk .... 
 
 . 291,501 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 275,859 
 
 Dorset .... 
 
 109,304 
 
 • • • 
 
 82,462 
 
 
 £1,789,154 
 
 
 £1,580,546 
 
 Deduct . 
 
 1,580,546 
 
 
 
 Decrease 
 
 £ 208,608 
 
 
 
45 
 
 Yet this I presume is not correct, as will be seen by an inves¬ 
 tigation of eight counties whose population are more particu¬ 
 larly occupied in manufacture ; for instance— 
 
 
 In 1813 
 
 and in 1829. 
 
 Chester .... 
 
 . £ 114,370 . . 
 
 . . £ 98,106 
 
 Derby .... 
 
 93,963 . . 
 
 . . 74,800 
 
 Lancaster . 
 
 . 306,797 . . 
 
 . . 260,891 
 
 Leicester . 
 
 110,560 . . 
 
 . . 106,862 
 
 Nottingham . . 
 
 88,013 . . 
 
 . . 69,137 
 
 Stafford .... 
 
 124,765 . . 
 
 . . 119,978 
 
 Warwick 
 
 . 157,932 . . 
 
 . . 141,579 
 
 York, West Riding 
 
 . 328,113 . . 
 
 . . 263,362 
 
 
 £1,324,513 
 
 £1,134,715 
 
 Deduct . 1,134,715 
 
 Decrease £ 189,798 
 
 Here we discover that the manufacturing districts have 
 reduced at rather a higher ratio than the southern counties, 
 being about one-fifth more in proportion to the amount of 
 expenditure respectively; and this too while their population 
 has augmented more rapidly, for these manufacturing counties 
 have added, between 1801 and 1831, seventy-six per cent, to 
 their population, while the eight counties mentioned under the 
 denomination southern , have multiplied only fifty-two per cent, 
 during the same period. It is, however, more consistent to 
 our purpose to notice the eight northern counties which Mr. 
 Slaney has enumerated, and these have increased their popula¬ 
 tion only fifty-five per cent. 
 
 I would, therefore, respectfully represent to your Lordship, 
 that I think the southern counties are not deserving of the 
 degree of delinquency which is generally attributed to them ; 
 but rather that they are retrograding from that ruin, towards 
 which other counties are advancing while adopting a different 
 system; regarding them according to their rates alone, ex¬ 
 clusive of the adventitious circumstance of higher wages for 
 labour, and employment in the factories. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. &c. 
 
LETTER VI. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Haying by various calculations exhibited the relative 
 position of some of the counties of England, the inquiry 
 whether it will be judicious to give generally in the south 
 an average of 1 2s. per week for labour, may be made now with, 
 I hope, more satisfaction. 
 
 Your Lordship will, I am persuaded, pardon me for direct¬ 
 ing your attention to a society calling itself “ The Labourers’ 
 Friend Society.” The professed and avowed object of that 
 institution is to encourage the letting of land to the agricultural 
 labourer at a moderate rent, to be cultivated by himself for his 
 own advantage, and if possible in quantity not larger than will 
 be sufficient to employ his extra hours. An object more com¬ 
 mendable, or more strictly consistent with my own Hews, 
 cannot be found. But how is it to be accomplished ? The land 
 may be let, and this is easy; yet who can secure to him regular 
 employment at adequate wages ? With that benevolent noble¬ 
 man, the Earl of Shrewsbury, I heartily accord, when his 
 Lordship states in his valuable pamphlet, at page 8, “ Small 
 plots of land are unquestionably of great advantage to the 
 poor cottager in every point of view; but without adequate 
 employment elsewhere , they become a mere palliative to his dis¬ 
 tresses:” and again at page 18, “ Here is the great difficulty, 
 and here always must be the great difficulty, to afford 
 
47 
 
 employment to the supernumerary hands at adequate wages , 
 without absolute ruin to the owners and occupiers of the 
 soil.” 
 
 Let us, for one moment, suppose a labourer in an agri¬ 
 cultural district has been favoured with an allotment of half 
 an acre of land at a moderate rent, that he has cultivated it 
 with his own hands and has received the produce. Will that 
 produce be sufficient to support him during the winter, espe¬ 
 cially if he have a family, without the price of his own labour, 
 which he is able to bring to the labour market ? And can the 
 Labourer’s Friend Society discover and supply him with em¬ 
 ployment, and pay him his price for it ? To provide for the 
 extra hours of the labourer is no herculean task; and if that 
 society would discourage the letting of land to the poor cot¬ 
 tager, until some method could be devised for obtaining work 
 for him during the twelve hours of the day all the year 
 round, with a fair return for it, the profitable employment of 
 his extra hours might be easily accomplished. But to encourage 
 the allotment system prior to the assurance of employment, 
 must have the effect of making the labourer eventually work 
 extra hours for only the same wages as he used to receive for 
 working the usual hours of labour; by which only his employer 
 will be benefited, and not himself. 
 
 This is, I think, very evident, when we examine his case 
 closely. If he is in receipt of more than labour pay, it will 
 soon be discovered by his employer, who may then say, “You 
 are better off, I shall not give you so much wages as I did 
 of course, my Lord, concluding that the market for labour is 
 open: and when thus rejected, should he apply to the magistrate, 
 must the magistrate include the advantage derived from the 
 garden-plot, or omit it, in calculating the amount of his income ? 
 If the magistrate include the advantages gained from the labour 
 during the extra hours, the poor man is not benefited by it, 
 but the occupier is the gainer; and if the magistrate omit it, 
 
48 
 
 the farmer may say, “ I will not find the man any employment.’’ 
 He is then immediately pauperized by working on the roads at 
 reduced wages, or by receiving parochial relief without being 
 employed. And I am not aware that any society can effect an 
 alteration in this case, except by procuring some legislative 
 enactment; a consummation most devoutly to be wished, pro¬ 
 vided it can be done without any injustice to the owner or 
 occupier of the land. 
 
 Let us presume, my Lord, that such society were disposed 
 to promote the increase of wages in agricultural counties to 
 the same average as Mr. Becher states the labourers receive in 
 Nottinghamshire, of 1 2s. per week, and still patronized the 
 letting of land to them; a question of a very serious nature 
 will instantly present itself. Will the society encourage the 
 single man by giving him 1 2s. per week? If the reply be a 
 negative, the society would be abetting improvident marriages: 
 equally promotive of early matrimony will the society be, if 
 it refuse to let the young man have an allotment of land be¬ 
 cause he is single. Of necessity then the young man is thrown 
 early into the labour-market at the full price of wages, in ad¬ 
 dition to those already in it; and if they overstock it, and the 
 demand for labour be reduced in proportion to the supply, so 
 must the price be reduced; and as the population increases, an 
 event which cannot be obviated as they will not be so willing 
 to emigrate, the consequence must be that the labourer will 
 have little more to subsist upon than his allotment of land; and 
 since this cannot be sufficient to support him, the rates will be 
 swelled to a devouring amount. 
 
 Should, however, no such ruinous consequences occur, but 
 the price of wages be raised, and employment be found at such 
 advanced wages, the payment of them must certainly be made 
 by the occupier of the soil, whose profits will be diminished 
 by the increase; or if they are not diminished, the produce of 
 the soil must be enhanced in value to meet such augmentation 
 
49 
 
 of wages. Tlie general expenses of subsistence would be 
 enlarged, and doubtless a larger circulation of capital would 
 ensue. But would not the price of labour amongst the arti¬ 
 sans, and mechanics, and tradesmen advance too? and would 
 not such advance demand an increase of their means ? would 
 not the whole of our manufacturing population require larger 
 pa} T , and could our manufacturers compete then so well with 
 foreigners? Might not the whole of our domestic system 
 receive an impetus which, on a reaction, a reaction not un¬ 
 likely to ensue, might quite overwhelm us either by the injury 
 done to commerce, or by an enormous augmentation of paro¬ 
 chial collections, or by both ? Is it then wise, my Lord, to 
 form all England, or at least all her southern counties, into a 
 hot-bed to force the growth of wages ? 
 
 “ I conceive,” said Mr. Becher before their Lordships’ Com¬ 
 mittee, (at page 333 of the Evidence,) “ that the wages of a 
 labourer should be sufficient to support him not only in health, 
 but in sickness, and old age.” To what extent he should be 
 remunerated is not the question, for he is not so protected by 
 law as to be able to make any such stipulation. If any real 
 and permanent provision is to be made when young and healthy 
 against the calamity of sickness or old age, new enactments, or 
 a consolidation of those now in existence, must be effected by 
 the legislature ; and I cannot persuade myself that either 
 house of parliament will sanction the fixing of an average price 
 of wages either at 12s. or at any other price, to accomplish 
 that object, however important. 
 
 I think, Sir, Mr. Becher might with equal propriety have 
 added, that the average price of wheat in Sussex at her various 
 market-towns, should be so much per quarter, because so much 
 is given in Nottinghamshire. But if this be unreasonable, 
 because there ought to be a competition in the wheat-market, 
 so ought there to be in both counties a competition in the 
 labour-market, with equal reason. And I presume that 
 it would be equally unwise to recommend an assimilation 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 in the price of labour, as in the price of grain through the 
 country.* 
 
 The farmer would, I imagine, find great cause to complain 
 of aggrievance, if the price of wages should be raised by 
 compulsion before the price of grain has risen sufficiently high 
 to enable him to give higher wages. He finds himself, upon 
 examination of his circumstances, peculiarly situated. His 
 tithes are most probably fixed in amount if he have any to pay; 
 his rent is fixed, his domestic expenses are fixed, or nearly so. 
 His capital has a demand for interest at a fixed amount. 
 Must he not, therefore, calculate what number of labourers 
 he can afford to employ, and at what wages? He has but little 
 opportunity to make one good year pay for a few bad ones, for 
 the check put upon the price of grain by the graduated scale 
 of the corn law keeps it at nearly a fixed rate, even though the 
 crop be injured at in-gathering, or be too scanty in quantity 
 to be considered an average crop. In which then of his ex¬ 
 penses can he make any curtailment to meet the advance in the 
 price of wages ? Let him bring forward more capital, might 
 be the reply. But to this I would object, that it is most un¬ 
 wise to wish him to employ more capital: the smaller it is in 
 amount the better, not for himself only, but for the community. 
 If he can procure an equal profit from a reduced, as he used to 
 do from an increased capital, it is a public benefit; for we well 
 know that a small capital, if adequate to the concern, always 
 pays a higher per-centage than a large one. The smaller his 
 
 * The price of wheat varies considerably in the two counties, as the re¬ 
 turns for the four last years exhibit. 
 
 Sussex. Nottinghamshire. 
 
 For 1828 . . . 59s. 4 d. . . . 65s. 11^. Imperial Bushel. 
 
 1829 ... 71 2 ... 69 5 
 
 1830 ... 64 5 ... 68 5 
 
 1831 ... 68 9 ... 70 7 
 
 Average . . 65 11 Average 68 7 Making a difference in 
 
 favour of Nottinghamshire of 2s. 8 d. per quarter; but as the grain is generally 
 heavier than it is in Sussex, the state of the counties is very similar. 
 
51 
 
 expenses, and the smaller his capital, but the larger his profits, 
 the more valuable a member of society must he become: and 
 we are almost forbidden, in common justice to all classes of the 
 community, to attempt to raise the price of wages beyond the 
 just and equitable value of labour in an open and competitory 
 market."* 
 
 In the evidence, which I had the honour to give before the 
 Lords’ Committee, I stated that the price of labour is too high 
 already in proportion to the price of produce; and I do not 
 perceive from the evidence of Mr. Becher, that I ought to 
 retract this opinion. At page 33 1 of the Evidence, Mr. 
 Becher comes to the conclusion, “ that the labourer in the 
 present times may support himself and his family with decency 
 and comfort , if he be not pauperized by an artificial and illegal 
 systemand he illustrates it by a comparison of the number 
 of pints of wheat which wages would purchase at different 
 periods. If we take the average price of wages at 1L. per 
 week from 1825 to 1829, supposing the average price of wheat 
 was 62 s. \d. per quarter, we find the labourer could procure 
 93 pints of wheat by the Winchester measure. Yet in the 
 period from 1800 to 1810, taking the average price of wheat 
 at 86«s. 8 d. per quarter, the same amount of wages would pro¬ 
 vide him with only 60 pints of wheat: from which it is just to 
 conclude that he was then in receipt of too little, or is now ob- 
 
 * It is for similar reasons that the notion of dividing large farms into 
 smaller must be objected to. There are many advocates for such a system, 
 who have not taken a comprehensive view of the subject. When we re¬ 
 collect that more farm-houses and buildings would he required, with the 
 loss of interest, and the expenses of repair; that more families must he 
 maintained from the same produce ; more horses employed upon the same 
 surface, &c., we perceive that very considerable additions would be made to 
 the charges attendant upon raising the produce of the soil. Neither should 
 we forget that there is more trouble with five small tenants than with one 
 larger capitalist, and more risk ; while there is less probability of good 
 culture, and the landlord has a less respectable tenantry. The proprietor 
 is not the only party benefited by large farms, but the public too. 
 
52 
 
 taining too much. But if with decency and comfort he may 
 support himself as Mr. Becher asserts, I do not perceive it to be 
 an act of justice to the farmer, or to the community, to supply 
 the labourer with the means of being more than decent and 
 comfortable, as long as he is dependent for that supply. It is, 
 however, capable of proof, that at 8s. per week the labourer is 
 in better circumstances than he was from 1800 to 1808, even 
 though in the weekly receipt of 1 Is. per week for his labour at 
 that period. Mr. Becher is, I feel persuaded, warranted, from 
 the facts of the case, in asserting that “ the poor have more 
 ability now than they had at any former times.” How then, 
 in the face of his own assertion, Mr. Becher can recommend 
 an increase of wages is to me incomprehensible, only as it 
 might have been proposed as the exception to this rule, and 
 then even with the extremest caution and prudence, and in 
 proportions varying according to local circumstances. 
 
 Neither must we forget, my Lord, that a still further effect 
 will be produced against the agricultural interests of the country, 
 if the intentions of the Labourers’ Friend Society can be ac¬ 
 complished, by turning the poor, who are customers for the 
 produce of the farmer, into growers of what they consume, 
 first, from the garden, secondly, Lorn the stye; and if, besides 
 this advantage, the poor are to receive higher wages, I do 
 not understand how agriculture can sustain the increased ex¬ 
 pense with a flatter market. 
 
 Besides, it appears to me that the very act would be suicidal 
 of its own intentions; for if we take the case of the northern 
 counties, it will appear that the amount of their poor-rate has 
 accumulated faster than in the south, even though in the north 
 they had given higher wages. And this is only to be expected; 
 for if the wages are to be raised, we may presume it is because 
 produce is more valuable, and that, consequently, the same 
 amount of wages will not go so far; and this same cause ought 
 to affect, and will affect, the allowance given to paupers; because, 
 if it be just to the labourer to give him more, it is unjust to 
 
withhold from the pauper a proportional addition to the scanty 
 means of his hare subsistence. I presume it would be im¬ 
 possible to prevent an increase of poor-rate in the southern 
 counties, if they were to augment the price of wages; because a 
 principle of equity ought to predominate among all the parties 
 dependent upon the produce of the soil, not even excluding the 
 pauper, who still has the opportunity of appealing to the ma¬ 
 gistrates for the application of that principle of equity to him¬ 
 self. And I fully believe that in general, indeed almost univer¬ 
 sally, the principle is acknowledged and adopted by that highly 
 honourable and valuable class of society, who are influenced by 
 motives of benevolence too sincere to permit themselves to 
 refuse the application of the pauper for his fair supply of the 
 common necessaries of life : yet are checked in their liberality 
 towards him by the counteraction of the same principle of 
 equity towards the persons from whose pockets the collections 
 they order, are made for the relief of the poor. The remedy 
 will, I therefore apprehend, increase the evil. 
 
 Without such addition, it is not easy for us to imagine how 
 they can subsist. Let us suppose that the labourer, who 
 receives an average of 85 . per week for his support, cannot 
 provide for himself and family without receiving 1 2s. on an 
 average per week, because the price of grain has advanced. 
 What is to be done with the case of the poor widow, who used 
 to have, at the same supposed equitable rate, 2s. per week ? 
 I cannot comprehend why she is not to receive one-third more, 
 and to be raised to Ss. per week. Does not a rise in wages 
 seem, my Lord, to involve the equitable necessity for a rise in 
 allowance to the poor? 
 
 When we look at the case, where necessity demands an in¬ 
 crease of the means of support to the labourer, we find by ex¬ 
 perience it is equally necessary to rise in the scale of allowance 
 to paupers. I 11 the year 1817, ending March 1818, we were 
 subjected to a bad harvest, and the price of labour rose, but 
 not in proportion to the price of wheat, and the labourers 
 
54 
 
 suffered severely. The expense of providing for paupers was, 
 however, vastly augmented, and the country never paid so 
 much poor-rate as during that year. 
 
 Still, my Lord, there is a kind of obliquity of vision in us, 
 I fear, while looking at this point of our difficulties, when we 
 suppose that higher wages are to be the remedy for the poor- 
 rates; for I presume that higher wages will be a remedy for— 
 and here I pause—for what ? not for the aged and impotent, 
 blind and sick. It may effect a reduction in the allowance for 
 children ; but it cannot find employment for the able-bodied 
 labourer ivho over-supplies the market . It may benefit the 
 labourer by a larger supply for his daily maintenance, but will 
 not, as a certain and inevitable consequence , secure anything 
 for sickness , calamity , or old age. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
55 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 In connexion with the view Mr. Becher takes of the effect 
 to be produced upon the poor-rates in Sussex, by giving higher 
 wages, I must not omit to notice the principle broached by 
 Mr. Senior, and adopted by Mr. Becher, because on this 
 principle his calculations respecting the relative position of 
 the counties of Nottingham and Sussex are based; and like¬ 
 wise, because the satisfaction I derive from its application is 
 but very small. It is to the following effect :—“ That the rate 
 of wages depends upon the extent of the fund for the main¬ 
 tenance of labourers, compared with the number of labourers 
 to be maintained.” 
 
 It will suit our purpose sufficiently, if we do not question 
 the soundness of this principle, but only investigate the effect 
 of its application to the case of the two counties, according to 
 Mr. Becher’s plan at pages 296 and 297 of the Evidence. 
 
 He there calculates what is the number of acres for 
 each agricultural labourer’s family, taking only the cultivated 
 acreage, and assigns to each family in Nottinghamshire 57 
 acres, and to each in Sussex 62 ; which I presume is scarcely 
 to be counted fair, for to each family in Nottinghamshire there 
 are only 4.8 persons, but in Sussex 5.3, making a difference of 
 half a person in each family. I have, therefore, multiplied the 
 agricultural labourers’ families in Nottinghamshire by 4.8, and 
 then divided them by 5, and the quotient is 7,655: and in 
 
Sussex by 5.3, and then divided them by 5, to equalize the 
 families in both counties, and the number is 13,565. The 
 acreage for each family will then be for Nottinghamshire 60, 
 and for Sussex 59. 
 
 To ascertain the amount of the fund for each family, we 
 may inquire what was the amount of the property tax in 1815 
 for the whole county; and, dividing it by the cultivated acres, 
 it gives for Nottinghamshire 1/. 12s. 1 \d. per acre, or 96/. 6s. 
 for the 60 acres; and for Sussex 1/. 2s. 9|r/., or 67/. 5s. 2\d. 
 for the 59 acres. 
 
 But as the property-tax may be objected to as a criterion, 
 though at page 300 of the Evidence Mr. Beclier refers to it 
 himself, calling it the rental; I will take the rental of 1811 
 by parliamentary return, and, having divided it by the cultivated 
 acres, it gives for each in Nottinghamshire 1/. 3s. 8\d., or for 
 the sixty acres 69/. 18s.: and for each in Sussex 13s. 8\d., or 
 for the 59 acres 40/. 8s. S^d. 
 
 Now, my Lord, I would submit, that land whose rental is 
 23s. per acre is, generally speaking, more able to receive labour 
 to the extent of 20s. per acre, than land whose rental is only 
 13s. 8d. per acre. But if not, let us examine what should be 
 the amount of the expenditure for labour in connexion with 
 the amount of the rent, and I will venture to state that it 
 ought to be much the same as the rent. Wherefore the fund 
 for labour in Sussex is only 40/. 8s. 8}d. for each agricultural 
 labourer’s family, consisting of man, wife, and three children, 
 and not 62/. as Mr. Becher’s suppositary case represents. And 
 if we presume that 8s. per week are received for labour by 
 such family, we have to deduct from the 40/. 8s. 8\d. 
 
 the sum of 20/. 16s. for the 
 8 s. per week for the year, leaving 19/. 12s. 8\d .; out of 
 which are to come all extras for the more expensive works of 
 harvesting, threshing, draining, ditching, thatching, &c.; and 
 from which it would be impossible to give the increase of 
 wages which Mr. Becher recommends of 4s. per week, which 
 
57 
 
 is 10/. 8^. for the year, leaving for such extra work only 
 9/. 4s. S x d. per annum. 
 
 This calculation is made on the supposition that rents are 
 the same now as they were during the war in 1811; and it is 
 also leaving out of the question altogether the fact that there 
 are many thousands of acres in Sussex which are not worth 
 lOs. per acre, and could not provide a remuneration for labour 
 to half that value. 
 
 When, however, we look at the case of Nottinghamshire, 
 we find that after we have deducted 1 2s. per week, or 31/. 4«s. 
 from the amount of 69/. 18<s., we have 38/. 14s. for all extra 
 work. The farmer in Nottinghamshire can, therefore, afford 
 to give the 12s., much better than in Sussex the farmer can 
 spare 8s.; but it does not supply the reason, and much less 
 the proof, why the farmers in Sussex should give the additional 
 4 s. per week regularly and incessantly, to make the average 
 wages 12s. 
 
 I perceive at page 314 of the Evidence, that Mr. Becher 
 does indeed mistake the amount of real property assessed for 
 the property-tax in 1815 for the rental of the land, which is 
 calculated to make a very erroneous impression. If we look 
 at the amount for Middlesex, we find that the real property 
 assessed produced 5,595,537/., and that the cultivated acres 
 were 154,698, which gives 36/. per acre. The fact is, that the 
 rental of land in Middlesex was only 349,142/.; and for the 
 whole of England 27,890,358/., according to the property-tax 
 returns of 1811 ; and not, nearly fifty millions, as Mr. Becher 
 represents, though he acknowledges his perplexity, and takes 
 the amount of the rental at 40,000,000/. This sum is, 
 however, more than the fact by about one-third. At the 
 foot of page 314, Mr. Becher again calls the rental of 
 Hertfordshire 571,107/., which was the amount of the tax on 
 real property assessed in 1815: the rental of the land was in 
 1811 only 342,350/. I apprehend, therefore, that the fund for 
 the maintenance of the labourers must be calculated by a much 
 
lower scale, and must confess that }^our Lordship’s request to 
 have the labour estimated at 5s. per acre was most judicious, 
 as approaching much nearer the fact, than either the twenty or 
 fifteen, or even ten shillings per acre, as Mr. Beclier had sug¬ 
 gested. 
 
 Your Lordship will observe the importance of this argu¬ 
 ment, when I state that the property-tax assessment of 1815 
 would give to the whole acreage of England, whether cultivated 
 or not, 1 l. 1 Os. 9d. per acre : while the rental of England for 
 her cultivated acreage alone, was in 1811 exactly \l. per acre; 
 and for her total acreage 17s. 3d. per acre only. 
 
 I fear I shall weary your Lordship with these details, or I 
 might pursue them further; and I might .add that I do not 
 think Mr. Senior’s principle, that “ the price of w r ages depends 
 upon the extent of the fund for the maintenance of labourers, 
 compared with the number of labourers to be maintained,” is 
 in all points correct, nor so sound that it can be universally 
 adopted; and am disposed to conclude with Sir John Sinclair, in 
 his excellent Code of Agriculture, “ That it is a general prin¬ 
 ciple, that the rate of labour must, in a great measure , depend 
 upon the price of grain.” The worthy baronet adds, “ In the 
 wages of labour, as well as in everything else, moderation is 
 desirable. It is remarked that high wages have a tendency to 
 throw labourers out of employment, as farmers in general, and 
 even small proprietors, are unable to give such wages; hence 
 they are obliged to carry on their work with fewer hands, or to 
 postpone improvements, which otherwise they would have 
 undertaken. Nor is that all; the labourers themselves suffer 
 by it, and so does the public.” 
 
 I have not the slightest regard for Sussex in particular, nor 
 the smallest interest in the county, and have made these 
 numerous, and I fear to your Lordship tedious, calculations, 
 only for the sake of endeavouring to discover the facts of the 
 case, and with the wish, if possible, to submit a remedy for the 
 whole of our counties, and indeed in no small degree as a duty 
 
59 
 
 I owed to tlie Committee, of illustrating the sentiments I had 
 expressed.* 
 
 The disparagement of the county of Sussex in her mode of 
 conducting the expenditure of the assessments made for the 
 relief of the poor, is, I fear, not to he justified; and though 
 attempted by Mr. Becher, there cannot be an individual in the 
 kingdom who can with any semblance of veracity charge that 
 honourable gentleman with any wish to depart from what he 
 considers to be strictly truth and fact. Indeed, I have been so 
 convinced of his integrity, and so impressed with the evidence of 
 his talents, and so surprised at the extent of his researches, as 
 well as filled with admiration at his benevolence, an atmosphere 
 he perpetually inhales, and out of which he cannot exist; that 
 were it not for the sake of a subject so comprehensive in its 
 present mischief, and so universal in the benefit it will confer, 
 if a remedy for that mischief can be found, that I would 
 
 * It may be pleasant to indulge the hope that the county of Sussex may 
 learn to employ those means more extensively than she has hitherto done, 
 which would increase the fund for the support of her agricultural labourers. 
 If one difficulty he the quality of the soil, the application of chemical tests, 
 as recommended by Sir Humphry Davy, in his ‘ Elements of Agricultural 
 Chemistry,’ to ascertain the quality of the component parts of the soil, 
 would exhibit the kind of manure required to render it fertile. The im¬ 
 proved method of convertible husbandry would, by rotation of different 
 crops, produce more profits to the cultivator, and employ more hands. The 
 introduction of new grasses, under the system developed by Mr. Sinclair, 
 in his valuable treatise entitled ‘ Hortus Gramineus Woburniensis,’ would 
 completely alter the appearance of the country. And if, in addition to these 
 means, or preparatory to them, more Acts of inclosure were to be procured, 
 much more labour would be required, and the fund for the maintenance of 
 labourers largely augmented. For it appears that though Acts of inclosure 
 may have depi'ived the labourer of his right of common, it has extensively 
 increased the demand for employment, and so much more abundantly 
 enabled the farmer to receive it with advantage, that the poor are better off 
 with that increase of demand, than if they had little labour provided for 
 them, and were left to the precarious subsistence of their own additional 
 means from the common. But if such inclosures had not taken place, the 
 rapid increase of the population, and the recourse to our own resources, 
 which the last war compelled, would have exhausted the country, and made 
 our present condition infinitely worse than it now is. 
 
60 
 
 prefer to leave that subject involved in all its present intricacy 
 and nebulosity, rather than be supposed to entertain an un¬ 
 charitable thought towards that excellent person. 
 
 Before, however, I conclude, I would refer to a fact in im¬ 
 mediate conjunction with this subject. It is the difference 
 in the amount of the expenditure in the counties of Notting¬ 
 ham and Sussex, for each pauper relieved. In the large 
 volume of returns for 1815, the sum for Nottinghamshire is 
 6 /. lls. 8±d., and for Sussex 10/. 9«s. 5±d. The reason of this 
 difference might help to solve the difficulty which hangs over 
 the inquiries, respecting the cause why Sussex is so much 
 burdened; but as other counties present even a greater con¬ 
 trast in the amount of their expenses, and as that volume is not 
 universally accessible, I will subjoin the whole of the counties 
 of England. 
 
 Expenses incurred for each pauper relieved in 1814. 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 Beds 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Berks 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 * 
 
 Chester 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 Cornwall 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 Cumberland 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 Derby . . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 Devon . . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 He* 
 
 00 
 
 Dorset . . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 
 Durham 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Essex . . 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 Hereford 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 8 £ 
 
 Hertford . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 Huntingdon 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Kent . . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 10 * 
 
 Lancaster . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 Leicester . 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 43 
 
 Middlesex . 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 Monmouth . . 
 
 • 
 
 £ 
 
 6 
 
 s. 
 
 16 
 
 d. 
 
 5* 
 
 Norfolk . . . 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 Northampton . . 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 Northumberland . 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 Nottingham . 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 00 
 
 Oxford .... 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Rutland . . . 
 
 • 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Salop .... 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 Somerset . 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 11 
 
 Southampton . . 
 
 • 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 Stafford .... 
 
 • 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 Suffolk .... 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 0 
 
 Surrey .... 
 
 • 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 n 
 
 Sussex .... 
 
 • 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 5 * 
 
 Warwick . 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 0 
 
 Westmorland . 
 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 Wilts .... 
 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 71 
 
 Worcester . . 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 York, E. . . . 
 
 • 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 Do. N. . . . 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 Do. W. . . . 
 
 • 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 All England 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 n 
 
 Believe me to remain, &c. 
 
61 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 The statements I have hitherto made, and the arguments 
 by which they have been supported, and which have received 
 so much patient attention from your Lordship, afford us, on a 
 review , only a conviction of the existing evils, and the obsta¬ 
 cles they present against the application of remedies. The 
 strictest regard to the mode of arranging and keeping paro¬ 
 chial accounts, and the procurement of correct returns, will 
 only exhibit the variety of forms the evil assumes. The 
 vestry meeting, when efficient, may do much towards the 
 regulation of the grosser enormities of the present system, 
 particularly by the recommendation of distributive justice. 
 The magistrate can effect but little while the act of Eliza¬ 
 beth is unrepealed, and no better system is adopted than 
 the provisions of the Select Vestry Act. The scale, though, 
 perhaps unjustly, reprobated, must be continued; the un¬ 
 employed labourer must receive parochial relief; head-money 
 must be paid for extra children, where there is not any 
 workhouse. The leading proposition of Mr. Becher, of giving 
 higher wages, so unfortunately echoed from north to south, 
 having too, I am sorry to apprehend, helped to augment the 
 discontent of the labouring classes, is founded upon an esti¬ 
 mate of the present relation of counties, so unsound as to 
 prevent its adoption. Under such perplexity we may look 
 round and inquire what other plans are proposed for adoption 
 
62 
 
 to arrest the progress of pauperism, and to relieve the country 
 of the pressure the poor-rates occasion. 
 
 There is one scheme which promises to be very remedial, I 
 mean the letting of land to the cottager for his own cultivation 
 and advantage, and to this I now solicit attention, particularly 
 as it is supported by a case referred to by the Lord Suffield, 
 at page 75 of his Lordship’s charge to the Grand Jury of 
 Norfolk, already alluded to. 
 
 I had not intended to notice this case, but it has been quoted 
 at page 242 of the ee Facts and Illustrations,” published 
 by the “ Labourers’ Friend Societyand as the inference 
 drawn from the premises does not appear to me correct, 
 I have decided upon placing it before your Lordship. It 
 was made originally by the late excellent Sir Thomas 
 Bernard, that zealous friend of every benevolent project for 
 “ bettering the condition and increasing the comforts of the 
 poor,” and is intended to exhibit a contrast between four 
 parishes in Rutlandshire and four in Sussex; and certainly at 
 the first glance it is very imposing, while endeavouring to 
 produce evidence of the vast advantage of letting land over 
 every other method of attempting to promote the welfare of 
 the labourer, and would, if it could be proved sufficient to 
 effect its object, prevent the necessity for commissioners, or for 
 the reduction of the labour market, or the introduction of a 
 labour-rate, or the interference with the price of wages, or the 
 finding of employment: but I cannot satisfy myself that the 
 argument is perfectly sound. 
 
 As your Lordship may not have the noble Baron’s charge to 
 the Grand Jury at Norfolk at hand, I will copy a portion of 
 the statement made by Sir Thomas Bernard. 
 
 “ Long experience has convinced the inhabitants of Burley-on-the-Hill, 
 Hambleton, Egleton, and Greetham, that the only means of keeping a 
 labourer with a large family off the parish hooks, is to let him land enough to 
 keep a cow or two. This expedient has been repeatedly tried, and uniformly 
 found successful. 
 
63 
 
 “ The influence of the system on the rates of these parishes will appear 
 in a very clear light from the following account: 
 
 Rutlandshire 
 
 Mon 
 
 sup 
 
 1776. 
 
 ey expe 
 
 port of 
 
 ...J 
 
 1783. 
 
 nded in 
 
 the pool 
 
 1803. 
 
 the 
 
 in 
 
 1815. 
 
 Amount 
 of rental 
 assessed 
 to proper¬ 
 ty tax in 
 1815. 
 
 Amount 
 of poor- 
 rate per 
 £. rent in 
 1815. 
 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 Hambleton 
 
 51 
 
 44 
 
 143 
 
 132 
 
 4,760 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 Egleton .... 
 
 24 
 
 29 
 
 70 
 
 104 
 
 1,893 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Greetham 
 
 61 
 
 54 
 
 160 
 
 219 
 
 2,993 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 Burley-on-the-Hill . 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 67 
 
 51 
 
 4,822 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 Total of the 4 parishes 
 
 147 
 
 140 
 
 440 
 
 506 
 
 14,468 
 
 0 
 
 9 
 
 “ In Burley the allotment system has been acted on for centuries, and 
 continues to the present hour in all its purity; and the result is that in a 
 parish containing very nearly four thousand acres of land, fifty-one pounds 
 per annum, or about threepence per acre is found an adequate provision for 
 all its destitute poor. The highest rate (Greetham) does not amount to 
 more than one shilling and ninepence; nor does the average on the whole 
 four parishes exceed ninepence in the pound rent. 
 
 “ By way of contrast, we shall place before our readers the state of four 
 parishes, where the labourers are permitted to occupy no land; where the 
 wife and children of the working peasant have no employment; and where 
 the allowance system appears to advance with rapid strides towards its con¬ 
 summation. 
 
 Sussex. 
 
 Money expended in the 
 support of the poor in 
 
 Amount 
 of rental 
 assessed 
 to proper¬ 
 ty tax in 
 1815. 
 
 Amount 
 of poor- 
 rate per 
 £. rent in 
 1815. 
 
 1776. 
 
 1783. 
 
 1803. 
 
 1815. 
 
 Burwash .... 
 
 Mayfield .... 
 Shipley .... 
 
 West Grinstead . 
 
 £. 
 
 470 
 
 518 
 
 443 
 
 417 
 
 £. 
 
 596 
 
 937 
 
 544 
 
 564 
 
 £. 
 
 1,520 
 
 2,387 
 
 2,267 
 
 1,639 
 
 £. 
 
 3,391 
 
 3,689 
 
 2,200 
 
 2,112 
 
 £. 
 
 5,513 
 
 8,939 
 
 4,020 
 
 4,228 
 
 d. 
 
 12 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 11 0 
 
 10 0 
 
 Total « • • • • 
 
 1,848 
 
 2,641 
 
 7,813 
 
 11,392 
 
 22,700 
 
 10 3 
 
64 
 
 “ In these parishes, selected at random from a great number of others 
 similarly circumstanced in Sussex, it appears that the poor-rate averaged 
 more than half the rent in 1815: since that period the ratio has become 
 still more unfavourable to the land-owner : the rates have been gradually 
 advancing, whilst the amount of rent has, in the same proportion, been 
 falling off. It is, we apprehend, impossible to place in a clearer light the 
 immense superiority of the croft and cow system of Rutland and Lincoln¬ 
 shire, over the allowance and workhouse system of the southern and eastern 
 counties.” 
 
 This is Sir Thomas Bernard’s view of the case. Now, we 
 will submit the statement to a two-fold test; first, to a com¬ 
 parison of the rates, and secondly, of the population. We will 
 inquire respecting the rates — 
 
 1st. What was the amount paid by each parish, and by the 
 whole county in 1776? 
 
 2ndly. What was the average paid by each parish, and by 
 the whole county from 1825 to 1829? 
 
 3rdly. What was the difference of each, and what the 
 average of the whole, as compared with the whole county? 
 
 Rutlandshire, In 1776. 
 
 Hambleton . . . . £ 51 
 
 Egleton. 24 
 
 Greetham. 61 
 
 Burley. 11. 
 
 All Rutlandshire . 2,664 . 
 
 Sussex, In 1776. 
 
 Burwash.470 
 
 Mayfield.518 
 
 Shipley. 443 . 
 
 West Grinstead ... 417 . 
 
 All Sussex . . . 54,734 . 
 
 In 1825 to 29. 
 
 . £ 230 . . 
 
 113 . . 
 
 222 . . 
 101 . . 
 8,919 . . 
 
 In 1825 to 29. 
 2,662 . . 
 . 3,377 . . 
 
 . 2,480 . . 
 
 1,916 . . 
 
 . 236,241 . . 
 
 Difference. 
 4.514 
 
 4.70 
 
 3.64 
 
 9.18 
 
 3.34 
 
 22.03 di- 
 - vided by 4 
 gives 5.50 
 
 Difference. 
 
 5.66' 
 
 6.52 
 
 5.60 
 
 4.59 
 
 22.37 di¬ 
 vided by 4 
 gives 5.59 
 
 4.30 
 
 The four Sussex parishes have not therefore increased faster 
 than the four Rutland parishes, taking them collectively, being 
 5.50 and 5.59; but the Rutland parishes have increased beyond 
 the average of their county, more than the Sussex parishes 
 have beyond theirs, being as 5.50 is to 3.34 for Rutlandshire, 
 and as 5.59 to 4.30 for Sussex. To Burley the palm has been 
 
65 
 
 awarded, though she is the principal delinquent. Her in¬ 
 crease is far above any of the parishes adduced from Sussex, 
 and is nearly three times the increase of all Rutlandshire, 
 being as 9.18 is to 3.34. I must confess I do not see the 
 “ immense superiority” of the condition of these four parishes 
 in Rutlandshire over the four in Sussex. Something is yet 
 behind the veil of 1776, or else there is something yet untold 
 regarding their locality: perhaps we shall discover it by apply¬ 
 ing the second test—the population, for the population has not 
 been alluded to at all, nor the acreage given, except in the case 
 of Burley, which has been represented as nearly 4,000 acres. 
 In the Labourers’ Friend Society, Mr. Dudlow says at page 
 242 of its publications, that both parishes, Burley and Bur- 
 wash are “ nearly equal in point of extent:” but does not say 
 whether in extent of surface or of inhabitants. There is in 
 fact a great difference in the extent of the population, which 
 in Burwash is 8 to 1 of what it is in Burley, yet Burwash has 
 not accelerated at the same ratio as Burley has done, as we 
 shall perceive if again we apply our proportions. If in 1776 
 Burley was burdened to the amount of 11/., and Burwash paid 
 470/., what ought Burwash to pay in 1825 to 1829, if Burley 
 paid 101/. The quotient is 4,316/. ; or 1,654/, more than 
 Burwash did pay.* 
 
 But let us look, my Lord, at the population. 
 
 Rutlandshire, 
 
 In 1801. 
 
 And in 1831. 
 
 
 
 Hambleton 
 
 . . 336 
 
 297 .. . 
 
 • 
 
 less by 39 
 
 Egleton 
 
 . . 135 . 
 
 137 more by 
 
 2 
 
 
 Greetham 
 
 . . 423 . 
 
 . 505 .. . 
 
 82 
 
 or 40 per cent. 
 
 Burley 
 
 . . 192 . 
 
 232 .. . 
 
 40 
 
 . 21 per cent. 
 
 1,086 1,171 124 
 
 less 39 
 
 leaves 85, or 8 per cent. 
 
 * Sir George Rose, observes, “ It is quite evident, on an attentive in¬ 
 spection of the returns, that the largest parishes pay considerably the highest 
 rates.” 
 
 F 
 
Sussex, In 1801. And in 1831. 
 
 Burwash . . . 1,524 . . 1,966 more by 442 or 29 per cent. 
 
 Mayfield . . . 1,849 . . 2,738 . . . 889 . 50 per cent. 
 
 Shipley . . . 997 . . 1,180 . . . 183 . 18 per cent. 
 
 West Grinstead . 939 . . 1,292 . . . 353 . 38 per cent. 
 
 5,309 7,176 1,867 . 35 per cent. 
 
 This difference in the increase of the population of the 
 parishes in Sussex, of 35 per cent, and of only 8 per cent, 
 in Rutlandshire, ought to have produced a greater difference 
 in the increase of the expenditure than it has done, of 5.59 to 
 5.50, if the parishes in the two counties are to be exhibited as 
 the groundwork of a remedial alteration in the system of paro¬ 
 chial management. 
 
 On this subject, of letting garden allotments to the 
 labourer, I feel with Mr. Pym, and with that gentleman 
 would say, as he does at page 385 of the Evidence, <f I have 
 seen many printed and other statements which appear to me 
 too sanguine .” And in the evidence I had the honour to give 
 before their Lordships’ Committee, I selected Mr. Estcourt’s 
 case, of which Mr. Pym said he had read, but did not know 
 whether the plan had been continued. The progress of the 
 system adopted at Long Newnton may be gathered from Mr. 
 Estcourt’s evidence. When the plan was commenced in 1801, 
 the effect was so complete, that it provided what might be 
 termed an annihilation of the poor-rate, which had been pre¬ 
 viously enormous, the population for 1801 being 196, and the 
 expenditure 234/., or 1/. 13s. per head, with a surface of 3,000 
 acres: for the expenditure was reduced gradually but speedily, 
 being in 1805 only 37/. 6s. Id., or 3s. 9f d. per head. But 
 upon perusing the table at page 371 of the Evidence, we per¬ 
 ceive that in 1811, when the population was 219, the rate had 
 augmented to 201/. 17s., or 18s. 5d. per head. It has, how¬ 
 ever, settled down for the ten years previous to 1829 at 
 10s. 8c/. And really, my Lord, this is a case whose varia- 
 
67 
 
 tions and defections may be useful as cautions to others, but 
 are not of a character to render it a paragon: for the expen¬ 
 diture for the whole county of Wilts, taking the rates in 1829 
 and the population return of 1831, is only 14s. 5d. per 
 head; especially when we recollect that several of the labourers 
 have had so large a plot of land as to enable them to do 
 without employment; and that the remainder had allotments 
 too; and in many cases, where they had large families, had the 
 rent of their cottage paid in addition. 
 
 I might have alluded to the case of Mr. Pullen, too, which 
 on examination of his evidence and pamphlet, seems to present 
 facts far too equivocal I fear for any practical purpose; but as 
 I presume enough has now been said to show, that all such in¬ 
 stances are upon close investigation detected to be by no 
 means remedial, and that some further efforts must be made 
 to discover the right method of deliverance from the burdens 
 so loudly acknowledged, because so universally felt, I shall 
 proceed to give your Lordship an opportunity of learning the 
 conclusions to which my reflections on these topics have brought 
 me, and propose to enter upon the subject in my next com¬ 
 munication. 
 
 I beg to remain, &c. 
 
 F 
 
 o 
 
LETTER IX. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 In placing before your Lordship, as I now propose to do, 
 the detail of my opinion on the subject of an amelioration in 
 the condition of the poor man, I would commence by stating 
 that before any improvement can be effected in his circum¬ 
 stances to an extent which will relieve the country of the 
 necessity of providing for him so entirely, that he is a burden 
 neither upon the charities of the rich, nor upon the collections 
 made for the maintenance of paupers, nor upon the profits of 
 the farmer; but is capable of supporting himself by honest 
 industry with perfect independence: he requires to be fenced 
 round from the encroachment of those obstacles which impede 
 him in his pursuit after prosperity, and occasion his call for 
 assistance. 
 
 To suppose that he is capable of relieving himself without 
 aid, is to conclude contrary to our experience; and to imagine 
 that no means can be discovered to assist him to help himself, 
 is to abandon his case without effort. After examining his 
 condition minutely, with the intention of devising and of 
 presenting before him some practicable plan, he surely ought 
 not to be relinquished in despair by an enlightened nation, 
 though the enterprise be arduous. We. should remember that 
 the end is internal and domestic policy, calling upon each 
 individual to exert himself for the welfare of the whole. It 
 would be most presumptuous in one so very humble as myself, 
 to expect to produce a scheme perfectly eligible ; and the ut- 
 
69 
 
 most I can hope for is to contribute in some degree, however 
 small, to accomplish a purpose so truly benevolent. 
 
 In endeavouring to render my sentiments intelligible and 
 perspicuous, I would arrange them with reference to the fol¬ 
 lowing objects:— 
 
 TO REDUCE THE SUPPLY OF LABOUR, WHERE IT IS EXCESSIVE: 
 TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT, WHEN NECESSARY, AT FAIR WAGES: 
 TO COMPUTE THE CHANCE OF CALAMITY: 
 
 AND TO ANTICIPATE THE SEASON OF DECREPITUDE AND EX¬ 
 TREME AGE. 
 
 To carry into effect a system which would be calculated to 
 apply suitable and sufficient remedies for those evils which 
 threaten the agricultural resources of the country with exhaus¬ 
 tion, I would propose the preliminary step of bestowing 
 upon the owners and proprietors of the soil, whether con¬ 
 sisting of nobility, gentry, clergy, or yeomanry, permission to 
 associate under the denomination or title of commissioners 
 of the poor in those parishes and neighbourhoods in which 
 their lands are situated; and of communicating to them power 
 and authority to inquire into the state of any land granted by 
 deed of gift or mortmain, or allotted at the time of the inclo¬ 
 sure, or by any other method set apart, separated, or appointed 
 for the use of the poor, and conveyed to trustees to be let, and 
 the rents, profits, and monies arising from them to be laid out 
 or expended on behalf of, or given to the poor; and of con¬ 
 sulting with the trustees whether such lands might be let on 
 lease to such commissioners at a rent not lower than the usual 
 rent for which the lands had been previously and customarily 
 let; or at a fair rent to be fixed upon between the commissioners 
 and the trustees, for the purpose of securing to the charities, 
 to which such funds had formerly been applied, an undiminish¬ 
 ed income in the hands of the same trustees. 
 
 The object of such enactment should be to enable the com¬ 
 missioners to let the lands to the poor in various ways, to effect 
 the purposes of the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth, cap. 2, which 
 
70 
 
 cannot now be adopted; but which the 12th and 13th sections 
 of the 59 Geo. 3. cap. 12 , and the 1 & 2 Will. 4. cap. 42. 
 have since regulated. 
 
 It might be advantageous to extend to such commissioners 
 the power to concert with the trustees to exchange such lands 
 if situated at a distance from the town or village where the 
 poor reside, so great as to render it materially inconvenient for 
 the use and occupancy of the poor, for other lands located 
 more favourably: provided the charitable intentions of the 
 donors of such lands were in no degree altered or injured. 
 
 And as it may frequently happen that no such land has been 
 so given or so allotted for the use of the poor, in a parish, I 
 should conclude it might be desirable to invest such commis¬ 
 sioners with permission to take a portion of the waste or 
 common land, if there were any, with the sanction of the pro¬ 
 prietor of the manorial rights. And' in case of failing to 
 obtain possession of land by this method, I would suggest that 
 the commissioners might be empowered to rent land on lease, 
 but only at a fair and reasonable rent. 
 
 In the attempt to procure the occupation of land, it is pos¬ 
 sible that some contingencies might arise for which it would 
 be requisite to make provision. The land might at some future 
 period alter very considerably in value, especially if situated 
 near the residences of the inhabitants; and to meet that occur¬ 
 rence, it would be safe to stipulate that the value of the rental 
 shall be re-estimated every seven years, by competent persons 
 appointed on both sides by the commissioners and trustees. 
 Another case to provide for, might be the removal of the com¬ 
 missioners from such lands, provided the trustees found them 
 more valuable for other purposes than for occupation, such as for 
 building ground, or for other improvements; and then the 
 commissioners should be required to deliver up the lands to the 
 trustees upon due notice, but not until the commissioners or 
 the trustees had found other lands in exchange, to which the 
 labours of the poor might be transferred. 
 
71 
 
 The 59 Geo. 3. cap. 12. gives to churchwardens and over¬ 
 seers the power to take land and let it to the poor; but as it 
 frequently occurs that such parish officers are too little interest¬ 
 ed in the occupation of land to make them anxiously solicitous 
 to prevent the poor from the necessity of applying to the 
 overseers for relief, by providing them with employment; and 
 as large occupiers have too great interest in the produce of the 
 soil to allow themselves to spare much time for attending to the 
 poor, and as the poor-rate falls inevitably as a tax upon the 
 landlord, it is evident that the duty of regulating the means 
 of providing for the poor should be intrusted by the autho¬ 
 rity of parliament to ether hands; since it is quite apparent 
 that the present parties are thoroughly incompetent to apply 
 the existing remedies beneficially, and would be most pro¬ 
 bably equally inefficient, though larger powers were granted 
 to them.* 
 
 The proprietor is the most deeply concerned in the pros¬ 
 perity of agriculture; and though he may relinquish his own 
 advantage, by taking only a low rent for his land, whatever 
 the amount of the levies may be, and however they may vary, 
 
 * Since this letter was written, and long since the opinion of the incom¬ 
 petency of the present parties was conceived, I observed the following remark 
 in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1817: “ Instead, 
 therefore, of having” (as we read at page 21) “ in this part of the kingdom, 
 persons the most educated, enlightened, and interested in the welfare of the 
 parish, entrusted with the administration of its affairs, we have doubtless a 
 respectable, but a less enlightened class of persons” than they have in Scot¬ 
 land, who are the heritors and kirk session, (i. e. the land-owners and minis¬ 
 ters and elders of the church,) “ appointed annually for the purpose; and, 
 however fit for the duty annual officers of this description may have been in 
 the reign of Elizabeth, it is obvious that the task which now devolves upon 
 them, is of such disproportionate magnitude as to require qualifications to he 
 found only in well-educated persons, and a degree of knowledge and ex¬ 
 perience which is incompatible with an annual appointment.” After the 
 Committee have recommended us to seek an educated and enlightened person 
 who is interested in the welfare of the parish, they have fixed upon an assist¬ 
 ant overseer at a salary. Showing both the importance and the difficulty of 
 the case. 
 
12 
 
 an advantage which would augment in proportion as his land 
 was exonerated from the rates, because he might ask more 
 rent; yet it is questionable whether he can, by the surrender 
 of his own interests, escape from the responsibility he owes to 
 the public, of endeavouring to keep down the rates to their 
 lowest possible level. His power to interfere is much circum¬ 
 scribed, by rendering the occupier liable for the poor-rate. 
 That he is destitute of, and wants, new authority and extended 
 influence appears certain, when we recollect that of all the 
 large landed proprietors in the kingdom who have devoted 
 their attention with much assiduity to the subject, and have 
 employed the powers they possess on their own estates, not one 
 has been able to produce, or made to bear upon the evil, 
 any remedy which can he safely recommended because it has 
 been tried and found expedient and capable of general appli¬ 
 cation, or of sufficient eligibility to claim the patronage of 
 Parliament. I do not, therefore, discover the error of the 
 59 Geo. 3. cap. 12. sec. 12. and 13. to he in the power it gives to 
 take land, hut in the selection of the party entrusted with it: 
 for I do not think that act bestows upon the poor, who are ex¬ 
 pected to take and cultivate their respective portions for them¬ 
 selves, a sufficient security of tenure, since the churchwardens 
 and overseers of one year may alter the arrangements of their 
 predecessors of the former year; and, by rendering the tenancy 
 of the poor too precarious to warrant an efficiency of cultiva¬ 
 tion, may deprive them of the opportunity of gaining all the 
 advantage they might do, if the circumstances under which, 
 and the parties from whom, they now rent the land, were per¬ 
 manently empowered. 
 
 And I would respectfully suggest, that the rich lose 
 much of the esteem and attachment of the poor, and con¬ 
 sequently of their influence over them, by the compulsion 
 the poor are under of considering the rich as a magis- 
 tratical authority, supporting the stern dictates of the over¬ 
 seer; and not, as, under a change of circumstances, they might 
 
73 
 
 become, the most true and the best friends of the poor. 
 It may seem, and it is, very amiable, when the rich distribute 
 their alms to the poor, particularly in the winter, whether in 
 food or clothing, yet what is this in amount when compared 
 with the produce of the half or quarter acre of land ? And, 
 indeed, were it more in amount to each family than the whole 
 value of the produce, yet the advantages of employment, the 
 occupation of idle hours when the mind cannot find engage¬ 
 ment from reading, the energy it gives to the younger members 
 of the family, and the genial habit of industry it induces, are 
 motives which should constrain the rich to aim to effect this 
 greater good. The attachment of the poor too is very valuable; 
 their gratitude, their respectful behaviour, their offices of kind¬ 
 ness, as far as it is in their power to show any reciprocity, 
 would, I am persuaded, amply repay the opulent land-owner 
 for attending to this matter himself) instead of permitting it 
 to remain in the hands of the overseer. 
 
 For these and other causes, it seems to me most reason¬ 
 able that this matter should not be left to the mutable 
 direction of annual parochial officers, nor to the vestry, 
 which is generally composed of clashing interests, nor to trus¬ 
 tees, whose chief duty is to procure possession of the funds 
 and to see them appropriated; but to commissioners, whose 
 intention would be comprehensive charity, aiming to consult 
 the advantage of all without partiality. 
 
 When this preliminary step has been taken, and commis¬ 
 sioners have associated and are in possession of land, we may 
 hope to witness a power with means adequate to obviate the 
 difficulties of the case, if wisely applied. 
 
 I am not unaware, my Lord, that an act of Parliament, 
 the 2nd of Will. 4. cap. 42, is now in force “ to autho¬ 
 rize (in parishes inclosed under any act of Parliament) the 
 letting of the Poor Allotments in small portions to industrious 
 Cottagers,” though I had not seen it when the above remarks 
 
74 
 
 were written. To this plan, as contributory to the scheme which 
 I presume must yet be pursued to provide employment for the 
 poor, and to reduce the amount of the poor-rates, I cannot 
 object, as it was recommended in the statement I had the honour 
 to place before their Lordships’ Committee in writing, but which 
 could not be received, as it was considered not to bear the 
 character of evidence; yet the act will not, I am apprehen¬ 
 sive, be found practicable, for the following reasons:— 
 
 1st; Because it may be destructive of the objects of' the charity. 
 
 For it enacts, in the eighth section, that the rents of the 
 portions of land let to the poor, shall be applied by the 
 vestry in the purchase of fuel, to be distributed among 
 the poor parishioners: and this is the sole appropriation 
 of the funds for which the act provides, whatever was the 
 original intention expressed in the act of inclosure. As 
 the act now stands, if land were allotted for any other 
 purpose than to provide fuel for the poor, it must in 
 future be so applied; perhaps the first section should 
 have had the word “ exclusively,” instead of “ cliiejiy 
 with a view to fuel.” 
 
 2ndly ; Because it is inadequate to its own intention. 
 
 For it admits only the “industrious cottager,” see title:— 
 “ Industrious cottagers of good character being day-la¬ 
 bourers or journeymen ;” see 1st section: it inquires into 
 his “ character and circumstances,” and requires that he 
 be an “ industrious cottager of good character,” see 3rd 
 section. It intends to assist those who in general are 
 well provided for, but does not attempt to improve the 
 less reputable among the poor; neither will it admit the 
 petty tradesman, nor artificer, who has not any employ¬ 
 ment in winter, though he should get higher wages in 
 summer, and who, being removed from the labour-market, 
 ought particularly, if possible, to be assisted; nor 
 does it provide more land if the quantity allotted is not 
 
sufficient to supply each applicant with a portion, except 
 by reducing the quantity to each; and as the quantity 
 cannot be brought below a quarter of an acre, perhaps in 
 some parishes it may be but a means of tantalizing. It 
 should be remembered that to let land to the poor is by 
 this act compulsory; to rent more under the 59 Geo. 3. 
 cap. 12, or 1 & 2 Will. 4. cap. 42. is only optional. 
 
 ordly ; Because it does not fix the mode of cidture. 
 
 For it does not once allude to that for which of all other 
 things it appears the most important to make pro¬ 
 vision, that it be cultivated solely by the spade. The 
 whble intention would at once be obviated, if it should 
 happen that the occupiers should agree to have the field 
 ploughed up and sown with wheat immediately after they 
 had gained possession of it. And if it were old sward, a 
 case by no means uncommon with such allotments, the 
 produce at first would, it is probable, be very great; but 
 the ruin of the land would with equal probability be im¬ 
 mediately effected, and then the poor might refuse to 
 cultivate it. 
 
 4 tidy; Because the interests of the charity might suffer. 
 
 For it takes the whole management out of the power of the 
 trustees, and commits it to the vestry, and particularly to 
 the churchwardens and overseers under the control of the 
 vestry; and in defiance of the remonstrances of the trus¬ 
 tees : and though the trustees may have watched the in¬ 
 terests of the charity, it permits the lands to be ploughed 
 or dug up, even if in pasture, and then requires them to 
 be reduced in value to only the same standard as other 
 arable land in the parish, and let to the poor at that stan¬ 
 dard. No shield protects the charity; but the enact¬ 
 ment even vitiates the very act of charity by making it 
 parochial relief, which it virtually becomes when trans¬ 
 ferred from the trustees to the overseers of the poor; for 
 in the distribution of the fuel it bestows no right to dis¬ 
 criminate. 
 
76 
 
 5 tidy; Because it affords an opportunity for fraud. 
 
 For it will not allow tlie rent to he paid but only once in the 
 year, instead of quarterly. If, after the termination of 
 the quarter, the rent were not paid within one month, to 
 fix a penalty, and if that be disregarded, to give power to 
 distrain, and that distress to lie against the crop and not 
 the goods of the house, would keep the poor more honest. 
 Qtlily; Because it is not sufficiently restrictive with regard to 
 the erections. 
 
 For it enacts that no habitations be erected, but does not 
 exclude the building of styes or hovels; and if these 
 should be erected, and stock of any description should be 
 admitted, great injury might repeatedly ensue, since the 
 allotments would not be separated by fences. 
 
 7 thly; Because it fixes the period of tenure from Michaelmas 
 
 to Michaelmas. 
 
 For the churchwardens are elected at Easter and the overseers 
 at Lady-day, and have to perform an act for the result 
 of which they have no regard, and are not responsible; 
 having quitted their office before the term, for which the 
 act requires them to let the land, has expired. And 
 again, for the poor may find it very inj urious if obliged to 
 remove from the land at Michaelmas, before they have 
 gathered a very important portion of the crop, the pota¬ 
 toes. Would it not be desirable to let the land to the poor 
 man for a term of 3, 5, or 7 years ? 
 
 8 thly; Because it is particular instead of general, and vice versa. 
 
 For it regulates some points which ought to be left to discre¬ 
 tion, as local circumstances may present a variety of facts ; 
 and regards others indefinitely which it ought to fix 
 peremptorily. 
 
 The effect of this act is to take from trustees and to give to 
 parochial officers, a power which should be entrusted only to 
 commissioners. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. &c. 
 
77 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 You will now be pleased to recollect that my first pointy 
 as stated at the commencement of my last letter, is to attempt 
 to reduce the supply of labour to the market , when it ex¬ 
 ceeds the demand. The able-bodied supernumerary labourer 
 is, therefore, the primary object of our regard. To him emi¬ 
 gration has been proposed. If he enter into the scheme 
 voluntarily and pursue it effectually, it appears to be a valuable 
 adjunct to other methods for curtailing the mischief produced 
 by a superabundant supply of labour; but it cannot be regu¬ 
 lated with any certainty, and is quite uncontrollable, being just 
 as likely to prevail where it is not wanted as where it is : and 
 is, consequently, to be feared if entered into with ardour by 
 the labouring population. And it is questionable whether it 
 would relieve the farmer; for he would be under the necessity 
 of paying as much poor-rate as before: and if the labourers 
 were thinned a little too much, he would, in addition, pay a 
 higher price for less labour. Could, however, land be let to the 
 better sort of labourer, in a quantity adequately extensive to 
 withdraw him from the labour-market almost or altogether ; 
 and when he has made a moderate accumulation of property, 
 should he be enticed to emigrate, he would not burden the parish 
 with the cost of his transmission, but make room for another to 
 supply his place at home. Under such circumstances he would 
 emigrate with great advantage to both himself, the parish, 
 and the labour-market. And possibly such enticement might 
 
78 
 
 be tendered in the shape of land at a very low price, which 
 would assist him to overcome any dislike of expatriation he 
 might have formerly cherished. 
 
 Should his circumstances not improve to the degree of en¬ 
 abling him to avail himself of such privilege, yet the labour- 
 market would be largely assisted if a certain number were 
 admitted upon the land taken into hand by the commissioners, 
 and were allowed to occupy a sufficiency of it to enable them to 
 subsist well, without employment being provided for them by the 
 parish. They might be permitted to obtain occasional employ¬ 
 ment where and when they could, even in the parish, only not 
 under the same necessity as that which requires the farmer to 
 find work for those who are inserted in the parish roll of regular 
 labourers. Their dependence for employment would be entirely 
 casual, no farmer being under any obligation to engage them, 
 but doing so with perfect and unfettered voluntariness, and over 
 and above his constant and fair quota; considering the amount 
 of his rent, or rate, or according to any other rule, by which 
 the distribution of the labourers to each occupier may be or¬ 
 dinarily graduated. 
 
 This portion of the plan is applicable to only the super¬ 
 numerary hands, who constitute an excess beyond the number 
 who can generally and usually find room upon the land, and is 
 consequently unneeded by many country parishes. Two, or 
 from that to three, acres of good land would be enough to 
 answer this object under spade cultivation. 
 
 There are at present four parties specially connected with 
 the circumstances which arise out of the culture of the soil, 
 the proprietor , the occupier , the labourer , and the magistrate . 
 The owner expects that he who rents the soil should retain in 
 his employ a sufficient number of labourers to keep it in pro¬ 
 fitable cultivation, and should pay them wages reasonably com¬ 
 petent to prevent excessive increase of the rates; which would 
 prove a lasting injury to the interests of the proprietor. In 
 his turn, the occupier is jealous of the interference of the 
 
79 
 
 magistrate with the labour-market, and apprehends that his 
 profits may be dwindled by a price more high for labour than 
 he can endure without loss of capital. And the labourer re¬ 
 quires the defence of his just claims for the means of subsis¬ 
 tence from the authority of the magistrate; while the magis¬ 
 trate sits in equity, and by a re-action, keeps the three parties 
 from mutual imposition. The principal effort, therefore, must 
 be to give efficiency to his decision, while he is carefully re¬ 
 stricted by the limits assigned through the regulation of wise 
 and specific acts of the legislature; and I am not aware, my 
 Lord, that such acts are very difficult of construction, or appli¬ 
 cation, where means have been taken to render the population 
 no longer redundant in agricultural labourers. 
 
 Not until the commissioners can grasp the superabundant 
 supply of labour, and can control it and hold it in abeyance 
 so effectually as to produce an equipendency between it and 
 the demand, can any amelioration of the residue be achieved; 
 but when that is done, I think it may. In those parishes, 
 therefore, where there are not any superfluous hands to be 
 subtracted from the market by the commissioners, I should 
 consequently conclude that means might be applied to reduce 
 their collections for the relief of the poor. 
 
 After a sufficient number have been withdrawn from the 
 labour-market, and a fair opportunity is afforded to all parties 
 connected with the culture of the soil to balance their own 
 interests honestly, but only with equity to the whole of our 
 population, for it is due to the community at large that this 
 extensive portion of our national property should be protected 
 but not favoured; to the remaining number of labourers might 
 with singular advantage be applied the effects of a labour-rate. 
 The farmer ought not to complain, when the amount of labour 
 brought to market is no more than he ought, in justice to all 
 parties, to employ, because the excess of the supply has been 
 removed out of his way; but because the farmer who neglects 
 
80 
 
 to take into his service men enough to cultivate the land to a 
 reasonable height is a public injury, a degree of unoppressive 
 compulsion should bind him to a proper regard for his own 
 interests. The proprietor has a just claim for a sufficient 
 guarantee that the occupier shall employ men adequate to a 
 due degree of cultivation, that the soil be not deteriorated, 
 which it is probable will be in better heart the more it pro¬ 
 duces, provided the produce be returned upon it. The owner’s 
 interest in the soil is indeed paramount, though his protection 
 is very scantily provided for at present, legislatively. If the oc¬ 
 cupier refuse or neglect to take his full complement of men, and 
 the rate is enlarged, the owner suffers both ways. His rent may 
 remain the same under the occupancy of the present tenant: 
 but he would find a new tenant would complain of the rates, 
 and would urge a reduction in the amount of the rent; 
 especially as the other evil would be discovered, that the land 
 had been suffered to go out of order for want of employing a 
 suitable number of labourers. The landed proprietor who 
 demises his farm to another may be supposed entitled to a 
 labour-rate, where there is not any redundancy of able-bodied 
 men, or where they have been desumed from the market by 
 letting them sufficient land; when any are thrown upon the 
 rates who ought to be employed.* 
 
 When the superfluous labourers are removed from the market, 
 and the labour-rate has provided those who are left in it with 
 regular employment, I do not think it objectionable that the 
 magistrates or the commissioners of the poor, many of whom 
 would probably be in the commission of the peace, should 
 be empowered to fix the minimum of wages. If the number 
 
 * The act of 2 & 3 Will. 4. cap. 96, alluded to at page 16, appears to 
 conclude obversely, for it does not allow the proprietor this protection, 
 except where the labourers are so numerous, and draw so largely upon the 
 farmers, that the rates equal 5s. in the pound on the rack-rent. The above 
 was, however, written before I had read the act. 
 
81 
 
 be brought down so low as to make it unjust to reject the 
 applicant for employment, it is equitable between him and the 
 farmer that the magistrate should interfere; and require, if em¬ 
 ployment be denied, that the farmer shall pay the same mini¬ 
 mum of wages, whether he take the labour the poor man offers; 
 or suffer him to be idle when willing to work. In fact it is 
 only the same thing as rendering the labour-rate compulsory 
 with an additional price, regulated by a scale according to the 
 price of grain, and, if the minimum of the wages only be re¬ 
 garded, perhaps even with respect to the number in the family 
 too, making the old scheme of the scale subservient under 
 altered circumstances, and applied not generally but individually 
 to every separate case. 
 
 Objections may be raised against permission being intrusted 
 with the magistrate to fix the lowest price of wages, or the 
 highest allowance for relief; but may it not be better, my Lord, 
 to invest the magistrate by a direct enactment with an autho¬ 
 rity he now assumes illegally, and carries to an injurious length, 
 if he ever regulate the highest price of both wages and relief, 
 and that indiscriminately through a district? 
 
 Allow me, Sir, to repeat that the parties should be correctly 
 poised. At present who can calculate the enormous cost of 
 the poor, and the burden they are upon the various resources 
 of the kingdom, without any improvement in their condition? 
 The amount paid for the labour of the man, the earnings of 
 the other members of the family, the collections levied for 
 relief, and the supply from innumerable sources of charity, all 
 unite their voices to call for some honourable project of equity 
 and benevolence, conferring a universal blessing. I shall not 
 count the time I have spent on these pages lost, if in the 
 smallest measure they shall be contributory to this purpose; 
 neither shall I consider that I have acted contrary to my sacred 
 profession, if I have aided to accomplish an amendment in the 
 temporal condition of the poor; for their present state is 
 greatly obstructive to the methods the clergy are expected to 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 adopt for promoting the temporal prosperity, and the spiritual 
 happiness, and the eternal hopes of the humbler classes of 
 their charge: and if it can be effected without disturbing the 
 relative rights of all parties, because their respective interests 
 are faithfully regarded, the whole of the population will derive 
 advantage without any sacrifice. I would humbly, therefore, 
 reassert, my Lord, my conviction of the value of attempting 
 to equipoise, as far as it can be done, the undoubted rights of 
 all the parties concerned. 
 
 Going forward with the supposition that the commissioners 
 are in possession of land, I would propose and recommend 
 that these remaining labourers who have been reduced to a 
 number only sufficient to preserve the land in a due state of 
 fertility, should have allotments varying in size from one 
 quarter to three quarters of an acre; enough, and no more than 
 enough, to occupy their extra hours, and occasionally to call 
 for the co-operation of their wife and children. The size of 
 the plot would probably vary according to the value of the 
 produce; which produce depends upon the quality of the soil, 
 and the value of it upon the contiguity of the spot to a market; 
 in some situations a quarter of an acre, or even less, being 
 productive of more profit than in others half an acre would be: 
 but regard should be had to the necessity of supplying the 
 labourer with a profit, on an average of years, of at least 51. 
 under spade culture, after the deduction of all expenses, 
 except his time; which is very practicable.* 
 
 Surely, my Lord, this is no trifling matter; when we re¬ 
 collect that one-third of the whole population of Great Britain 
 are employed in agriculture, it is all but imperious to see that 
 they produce at as low a price as possible. Taking the total 
 
 * See ‘ The Poor Man’s Best Friend,’ by that amiable and praiseworthy 
 clergyman, the Rev. S. Demainbray : where the expenses and profits of 
 spade cultivation are practically exhibited in a faithful and pleasing manner. 
 
83 
 
 population at 16,537,398, one-third is 5,512,466; and if we 
 give five and a half to each family, and call them one million, 
 and say that half only of these are labourers’ families occupied 
 in agriculture, we have 500,000. If to each family be given 
 only Is. a week per annum, we have the sum of 1,300,000/. 
 Could then the superabundant labourers be removed out of the 
 market, and afterwards employment be found for the remaining 
 portion at moderate wages, the expenses attendant upon corn¬ 
 growing would be kept down most beneficially to the country 
 at large. And could the labourer at the same time be enabled to 
 come to market with a little more money which he has gathered 
 from his extra industry upon the soil, our own manufac¬ 
 turer would benefit by the consumption of the articles he has 
 prepared; while the occupier too is more able to enter the 
 market for our manufactured goods; which in turn are furnished 
 to the farmer and to the labourer at a lower rate, because so 
 much has not been paid to the labourer as wages, nor for 
 relief. ^ 
 
 Neither is it, I hope, a matter of mere speculation, or if it 
 is, I am not quite singular in entertaining a supposition of 
 its value. The very judicious and experimental evidence of 
 Earl Stanhope, strongly corroborates the correctness of my 
 sentiments. That his Lordship has not succeeded quite so 
 well as he had intended to do, appears to arise from that for 
 which I am desirous to be an incessant advocate, the combina¬ 
 tion of expedients already in operation ; but ineffectual from 
 want of combination. 
 
 * The productions also of the higher branches of art and science would 
 meet with more encouragement, as the landed proprietor would be defended 
 in his claim for a reasonable, fair, and equitable amount of rent; which 
 would soon find its correct level in the degree of demand there would 
 be for farms, whether larger or smaller be that degree ; and justly secured to 
 him by the honourable balance maintainedbetween all parties in the country : 
 without those draughts too upon his charity purse which go now to eke out the 
 bare subsistence of the poor, and not to add to their comforts. The nation¬ 
 ality of the benefit effected by the independence of the labourer calls for 
 parliamentary interference. 
 
 r 9 
 
 VT /V 
 
84 
 
 For an individual to attempt to effect such association of 
 remedies within his own sphere, is, at most, to insure them only 
 during the term of his own ascendency over them; and because 
 they cannot, with absolute certitude, be made continuous, he 
 may be reluctant to commence what he cannot perpetuate. 
 My wishes and attempts to let land in my own parish on a 
 larger scale are paralyzed for the present, and I am still hin¬ 
 dered from seeking to make much alteration before I can enjoy 
 the warranty of parliamentary sanction. That justly esteemed 
 prelate, the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, may wish his 
 clergy to follow his own most benevolent example of letting 
 land to the poor labourers in their respective parishes, and to 
 cast the rays of his benign influence.to the remotest extremi¬ 
 ties of his Lordship’s diocese; but this influence can with cer¬ 
 tainty be maintained only during the term of his own episco¬ 
 pate. As all posthumous good is the best good any one can 
 effect, I cannot but suppose his Lordship would rejoice to have 
 it in his power to continue the advantage for generations to 
 come: then would many yet unborn rise up to admire and 
 bless his memory. Long may his Lordship live, to plead the 
 cause of the poor in their Lordships’ house, as well as by his 
 pen and among his clergy; and to see his compassionate desires 
 accomplished and secured to the country at large, and rendered 
 permanent. 
 
 How valuable, therefore, would be the efforts of all parties, 
 if united under one comprehensive system. Then might the 
 removal of one benevolent person from a parish or neighbour¬ 
 hood be felt but slightly, as another might be found to fill 
 up the vacancy. The scheme demands such union and co¬ 
 operation, that the poor may be assured of the continuation of 
 the project, and may enter into the plan without any appre¬ 
 hension if its being suspended. 
 
 I have the honour to be, &c. 
 
LETTER XI. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 When the Savings Bank system was introduced, I received it 
 with much satisfaction, in hope it would benefit the labourer in 
 agriculture, hut I soon found the statement made by Mr. Pym, 
 at page 386 of the Evidence, was the result. The aspect of 
 the poor laws is too forbidding to encourage the labourer to 
 attempt to make any deposits. If it were known that he had 
 placed any money in the savings hank, he would, if belonging 
 to a parish overstocked with labour, and as soon as the circum¬ 
 stance was discovered, be refused employment; and if he 
 applied to the magistrate, the law would not permit the magis¬ 
 trate to make an order for relief till the whole of the money 
 the labourer had hoarded in the bank were expended. 
 
 I then directed my attention to the Friendly Society system; 
 and here again was I foiled, for it was vain to attempt to ask a 
 poor man to deposit before he had earned such deposit. How 
 then can the man be provided with more income ? Let the 
 farmers give more wages. No, for this would be obnoxious to 
 the plan adopted by the magistrates of regulating the price of 
 wages, a plan necessarily excrescent from the poor laws; and 
 would he inequitable. For if in a parish not oppressed with 
 extra labourers, the farmers should happen to give more wages, 
 it would he unjust towards the farmers of another parish, in 
 the same division, much oppressed with a superabundance of 
 labour; unless they gave their labourers so much for labour, 
 and so much more as a gratuity, to be placed in the friendly 
 
86 
 
 society. And if in any parish more wages were given, the 
 object of making a benefit society run parallel with such in¬ 
 crease of wages, would not be attained, unless it were certain 
 that the poor man would deposit the surplus of wages given 
 him with such intention. 
 
 But it may be asked me, will it not answer the purpose to 
 let land to the poor, 07nitting the benefit society? My reply 
 is a negative, for in the case of Long Newnton, we find the 
 profit gained by the land has not effected uninterruptedly a 
 complete subjugation of that hydra the poor-rate, much less its 
 extermination. Yet I must confess that I think if, when Mr. 
 Estcourt’s respected father had first intrusted the allotments 
 to the poor, he had stipulated that they should deposit so much 
 according to their age, as would have been sufficient to provide 
 for sickness, for old age, and for a sum at death, he would at 
 least have crippled the monster, and taken in hand the privilege 
 of utterly nullifying all its future efforts for the renewal of its 
 own predominancy. And if difficulties had afterwards arisen 
 to prevent the poor from continuing constantly and regularly 
 to make such deposits, their amount might have been added to 
 the rent, and claimed and received from them by Mr. Estcourt 
 as rent, and deposited for them by him in the benefit society, 
 with the same regularity as they observed for the payment of 
 the rent; and it would have been calculated to insure on the 
 part of Mr. Estcourt a more constant attention to the welfare 
 of the poor, and have supplied him with a reasonable plea for 
 his insisting on the faithful payment of the rent at the ap¬ 
 pointed season, as their advantage would be identified with his 
 own. At any rate would it not be wise, my Lord, to endeavour 
 to rescue from the amount of additional benefit derived by the 
 poor from the culture of land on their own account, a portion 
 for the benefit society ? If it was esteemed desirable to esta¬ 
 blish and encourage a benefit society, when the labourer was 
 receiving only wages for labour, and those wages scarcely suffi¬ 
 cient for Lis subsistence; it is more than desirable, perhaps 
 
87 
 
 almost an obligation, arising from the duties we owe to our 
 country at large, to accomplish, if possible, an end so very 
 valuable to all, and so entirely innoxious to any, when the 
 means to do so are superadded to the wages. 
 
 It is not a novelty to expect labourers to deposit from their 
 earnings a small portion against a season of calamity or decre¬ 
 pitude. This most liberal and judicious system cannot, how¬ 
 ever, be imitated generally, because it would add too largely to 
 the expenses of farming: but if the poor are placed in a situa¬ 
 tion of earning something more than the usual price for labour, 
 they ought not to complain if a portion of their extra earnings 
 be deposited in a place of security. For this purpose, the benefit 
 society is preferable to the savings bank, and should be pri¬ 
 marily regarded; especially as it would not act as a preventive 
 of their depositing in the savings bank, on their own account, 
 any further sums they might be able and willing to hoard. 
 
 Evidence of the strongest kind is presented by the report of 
 the Hampshire Friendly Society,* at the annual meeting in 
 July 1830, that such institutions are generally incapable of 
 comprising the labourer in agriculture, except at such a re¬ 
 duced premium as to render the advantages too inconsiderable, 
 or the existence of the institution too precarious. “ It is 
 feared,” says that report, “ without a material reduction in the 
 amount of the monthly contributions, its advantages, like those 
 of the savings bank, will, for the most part, be monopolized 
 by the higher classes of mechanics and domestic servants, 
 whilst the inferior labourers will still continue in their present 
 wretched state of poverty and abject dependence upon the 
 parish rates.” The report then proceeds to propose a plan for 
 
 * I bring forward this society in particular, because it was framed after 
 Mr. Becher’s own model, and is sufficient to exhibit the impossibility of ren¬ 
 dering friendly societies a substitute for poor-rates, and that such an institu¬ 
 tion is to occupy only its own proper position in a complicated scheme, and 
 can never be remedial when isolated. 
 
88 
 
 i 
 
 extending the advantages tendered by the friendly society to 
 the labourer in agriculture, notl by their own means, but by 
 effecting in their favour a reduction in the amount of the de¬ 
 posit required from members in general, through “an adequate 
 increase of honorary'subscriptions” : and argumentatively to 
 support this principle adjoins, " And surely those who desire to 
 improve the condition of the poor, and relieve the country 
 from the increasing and almost intolerable burden of the poor- 
 rates, will not consider a small annual subscription ill-bestowed 
 in seconding the efforts of this institution," 
 
 The case of this institution was one of those which scared 
 me from advancing in a proposal made last spring, for endea¬ 
 vouring, in concert with some of the gentry and clergy, to form 
 an extensive friendly society for the southern part of the county 
 of Northampton; for the Hampshire friendly society had raised 
 by voluntary contributions, principally through the laudable 
 benevolence and exertion of Mr. Fleming, the late member 
 for the county, upwards of five thousand pounds, the interest 
 of which is consumed together with subscriptions to the 
 amount of perhaps 100/. per annum, in the expenses in¬ 
 curred by 625 males, 222 females, and 271 children who are 
 to receive endowments at 14 or 21 years of age; selected prin¬ 
 cipally from among the higher classes of mechanics and domes¬ 
 tic servants, who are resident, of course not so much in the 
 villages as, in the towns of the county. 
 
 That such society is not valuable, I am not prepared to 
 assert, my Lord, but I cannot discover in it a remedy for the 
 poor laws, though I think it might be rendered subservient in 
 no inconsiderable measure to that purpose, when acting in com¬ 
 bination with other means; and the report seems perfectly aware 
 of the inadequacy of the institution, since it “ most earnestly 
 solicits the continuance of the honorary subscriptions, as the 
 salaries absolutely necessary to remunerate, in any degree, the 
 services of the medical and other officers, greatly exceed the 
 amount originally calculated to defray the expenses of manage- 
 
89 
 
 ment; and botli the continuance and increase of those subscrip¬ 
 tions, to effect a reduction of the rate of payments to a nearer 
 proportion with" the present very low rate of wages of the 
 labouring classes; and most especially of those engaged in 
 agriculture.” I must acknowledge it to be a much more 
 advantageous scheme, and equally effective of our object, if the 
 money come, not from the rich, but from the industry of the 
 poor themselves. 
 
 It is interesting to observe the comparative state of our 
 counties with respect to^savings banks. For this information 
 we are indebted to the assiduity of JohnTidd Pratt, Esq., the 
 barrister-at-law appointed to certify the rules of savings banks 
 and of friendly societies in England and Wales, &c. &c., by 
 whom I had the honour of being presented with a copy of his 
 work. I have selected the counties which Mr. Slaney has 
 enumerated in his Evidence at page 195; and in order to 
 obtain a more exact understanding of the case, I would pre¬ 
 mise that the difference is not to be accounted for by the 
 number of the population. By the last census the population 
 was— For the eight northern counties 2,357,800, and 
 For the eight southern counties 2,323,300 
 
 forming a difference of 34,500 more in 
 the north than in the south. And as they are so much better 
 off in the north, according to Mr. Slaney’s representation, we 
 may suppose they are depositors to a much larger amount than 
 in the south: but the reverse is the fact. 
 
 The northern counties: Savings Banks. 
 
 Yorkshire, the three ridings . 
 
 . ... £ 1,055,005 
 
 Lincoln. 
 
 .... 213,088 
 
 Westmorland. 
 
 .... 23,807 
 
 Cumberland.' 
 
 .... 127,916 
 
 Northumberland .... 
 
 .... 292,972 
 
 Durham. 
 
 .... 151,417 
 
 £ 1,864,205 
 
The southern counties : Savings Banks. 
 
 Kent . . 
 
 Sussex . 
 Surrey . 
 Oxford . 
 
 Wilts . . 
 
 Berks . 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 Dorset . 
 
 
 ... £ 523,010 
 
 . . . 260,663 
 
 . . . 380,960 
 
 . . . 148,629 
 
 . . . 249,751 
 
 . . . 244,909 
 
 . . . 191,624 
 
 . . . 235,118 
 
 
 £ 2,234,664 
 
 Deduct the northern counties 1,864,205 
 
 
 Difference . 
 
 . . . £ 370,459 
 
 It is therefore evident that while the southern counties had 
 not so much population by 34,500, their deposits in the savings 
 hank were more by <£370,459. 
 
 It will not detain your attention long, if I compare Sussex 
 with Nottinghamshire. 
 
 Population. Savings Bank. 
 
 Sussex .... 272,300 . ... £ 260,663 
 Nottinghamshire . 225,400 .... 223,106 
 
 To show the prosperity of Nottinghamshire over Sussex, 
 Mr. Becher represents that in Nottinghamshire there are 1 IT 
 persons in every hundred who are depositors in friendly 
 societies, according to parliamentary report in 1815, hut in 
 Sussex only 2\ in every hundred. Taking the census of 1821, 
 there were therefore 21,490 depositors in Nottinghamshire, 
 and only 5,825 in Sussex; but when we divide the amount of 
 money deposited in each county by those, depositors, it gives 
 for each in Nottinghamshire 15s. 8c/., and in Sussex 21. 5s. 8c/. 
 each. As, however, Mr. Tidd Pratt’s returns were made up 
 to November the 20th, 1830, and the census was taken in 
 1831, we may inquire what each person had deposited in the 
 savings bank in each county, and we discover that to each of 
 the population it gives in Sussex 18s. 5c/., and to each in Not¬ 
 tinghamshire 19s. 9c/. There is not, therefore, in these two 
 
91 
 
 counties so much difference in their savings banks as to exhibit 
 Nottinghamshire in a better condition than Sussex, or to prove 
 that higher wages are required in Sussex to bring her into 
 the same state of prosperity, as Mr. Becher presumes does 
 exist in Nottinghamshire. A suspicion is created too that the 
 column in Mr. Becher’s tabular illustration at page 317 of the 
 Evidence, entitled “ Number of members in friendly societies 
 in every 100 persons,” is a fallacious test of the prosperity of 
 the counties respectively, as he proposes to make it in the 
 comparative view he gives of Nottinghamshire and Sussex at 
 the foot of pages 29 6 and 297. For this, however, that gentle¬ 
 man is not responsible, as it is taken from returns made to par¬ 
 liament ; but only for the application of the facts. 
 
 For the purpose then of giving more energy to the system 
 of saving, whether in banks or friendly societies, I would add 
 the plan of allotments, for after all it is by means of those 
 institutions that the country must be relieved, and I cannot 
 imagine that either of them can be dispensed with; the only 
 difficulty of the case being the inability of the labourer in 
 agriculture to obtain sufficient, after his subsistence is provided 
 for, to enable him to secure further advantages in them. 
 Servants and the better sort of mechanics have this privilege, 
 and their case is provided for, when they first secure their in¬ 
 terest in the friendly society; though I would submit to your 
 Lordship that their case would be much more complete if 
 government could form an annuity or tontine society, for de¬ 
 positors in savings banks, receiving the amount of their depo¬ 
 sits and allowing them an annuity for life, or in the decline 
 of life, to commence at a given age A The case, however, of 
 
 * I had not at this time seen the report of Lord Milton’s Committee on 
 Life Annuities in 1829, where a similar plan is recommended in the Evi¬ 
 dence : and I expect a bill will be brought into parliament this session on 
 the subject of granting permission to the depositors in savings banks to pur- 
 
92 
 
 the agricultural labourer is not yet duly regarded. As it is 
 not possible to provide a system of benefits sufficiently reduced 
 to meet his circumstances, it will be necessary to improve 
 his condition; and while adding to his present comforts, to 
 assure him an opportunity for obtaining assistance in calamity 
 and decrepitude. 
 
 The parish of Thurgarton, in Nottinghamshire, of which 
 Mr. Becher is incumbent, may be produced as a specimen 
 illustrative of the system I propose, except that it may not be 
 practicable to raise the poor of every parish to a state of pros¬ 
 perity so high as that to which the agricultural labouring inha- 
 tants of this favoured village have been elevated under the 
 parental eye of Mr. Becher. From the description given of 
 them in the ‘ Anti-pauper System,’ and in the ‘ Evidence,’ we 
 learn that in Thurgarton the population is 300, the acreage 
 3,000, and the weekly wages 1 2s., and by piece-work fre¬ 
 quently from 1 2s. to 16s. It is therefore conspicuous that 
 their number on the land is not many, and that the wages 
 are high , and consequently that there cannot reasonably be 
 any want of employment , excluding the manufactories alto¬ 
 gether. Yet they are represented as being “ depositors to the 
 Southwell friendly society and to the savings bank , to a very 
 large amount; and have their houses as well furnished, and 
 their persons as well clad, according to their circumstances, as 
 any of their superiors.” But then they have large gardens 
 not less in extent than a rood, and not more than half an acre: 
 and Mr. Becher adds, at page 323 of the Evidence, “We 
 have always found that a man is considerably benefited by a 
 small garden, but that the size of it should be such as merely 
 to occupy occasionally his leisure hours, without taking his 
 
 chase annuities. Not that the agricultural labourer can be expected to avail 
 himself of such privilege; for if he had the means, he would not like to 
 make any deposit except the annuity were transferable; and if it were 
 transferable it would be saleable, which would not prevent him from becom¬ 
 ing chargeable in old age. 
 
93 
 
 labour out of the market, otherwise an injury will be done to 
 the land-owners and occupiers.” 
 
 Neither is it absolutely necessary to carry measures to such 
 an extent, the primary object of political economy being to 
 enable the poor to subsist without being burdensome, and a 
 secondary one to become rich. The only points in which the 
 parish of Thurgarton does not apply to my system being, that 
 there is no need of letting large portions of land, as the popu¬ 
 lation is already thin enough; nor no occasion for a labour-rate, 
 as all are employed; and no demand for the regulation of wages, 
 since they are already high. Yet they possess that to which 
 I have not yet alluded, a workhouse, or rather send their poor 
 when necessary to an incorporated workhouse. My own 
 system is complete, and the difficulty lies in being able to 
 afford to other parishes the same opportunities: for I heartily 
 accord with the sentiment expressed at page 29 of Mr. Becher’s 
 ‘ Anti-pauper System.’ “ While we inculcate these truths upon 
 the higher orders, we are equally bound to impress upon the 
 minds of the working classes the duties of forethought, fru¬ 
 gality, and industry, and at the same time to testify the sin¬ 
 cerity of our professions for their welfare, by devising such 
 means as may place independence within the reach of those 
 who are willing to struggle for its attainment.” 
 
 The principal difference between Mr. Becher’s system, and 
 my own views of the subject, regards the price of wages. I 
 presume that the poor of other parishes, even some of those 
 located in Sussex, might arise to a state of independence, if 
 they were favoured in the same manner as Thurgarton, though 
 their labourers received only 86*. for their labour instead of 126. 
 
 How to provide additional means is the first consideration; 
 and then the second is, how to render such means effectual. 
 In my next communication to your Lordship I trust this will 
 be demonstrated. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 
94 
 
 LETTER XIT. 
 
 It is, I presume, my Lord, very generally confessed that an 
 alteration should be made in the means of providing paro¬ 
 chially for the poor; and it is not improbable that a principal 
 obstacle, in the way of making an attempt, is the difficulty of 
 knowing where to begin. Whether the old system should be 
 remodelled at once, or whether a new one be introduced, which 
 would gradually advance and occupy the space of the old 
 system, the one expanding with the contraction of the other, 
 it is perhaps not easy to determine. In the latter opinion 
 I am most disposed to concur, since it would be unattended 
 with any immediate violence to the present arrangements. 
 
 I would, therefore, propose to commence with the young , 
 for to them is the source of the evil to be traced. Early ini¬ 
 tiated in all the artifices of pauperism by his parents and asso¬ 
 ciates, a lad soon discovers that he must of necessity employ 
 those artifices in his own defence. Efforts are made to compel 
 him to seek employment usually away from his own parish. If 
 he can obtain it at a distance, which he must submit to do at 
 a low rate, he is treated in general with the greatest contempt, 
 and placed perhaps under the severest drudgery. At the ex¬ 
 piration of the year he returns to his parish. Once more is 
 he driven from home; and if after a few years he is resolved to 
 continue his residence in his own parish, he is not improbably 
 refused employment, until he can prove, or at least has asserted 
 on oath before a magistrate, that he has not gained a settle¬ 
 ment by service in some other parish; or if he do procure em- 
 
95 
 
 ployment, he must work for wages so low as to compel him 
 either to go from home again, or to marry. To raise him into 
 a respectable labourer, after such a course of treatment, is next 
 to impossible, and I fear that to this cause principally is to be 
 attributed the deterioration which has taken place in the 
 character of labourers in agriculture, and invokes a review of 
 the law of settlement. 
 
 Such are the men, or rather lads, who marry very early, 
 and their desperate circumstances cause them to marry 
 most improvidently. The general demoralization of a parish 
 will be created and maintained chiefly by the very low, un¬ 
 instructed, idle, profligate women, who are by this method 
 introduced into it. Attempts to regulate them are almost 
 nugatory. Sometimes a whole parish is disgusted to behold 
 what a wretched person the youth has produced. Can we 
 be astonished that the hand of charity should strive to provide 
 means of enticing the children of such parents as soon as pos¬ 
 sible to school, and assiduously endeavour to rescue them from 
 such haunts of misery, and train them up for apprenticeship or 
 service ? Shall such schools be esteemed repudiable, because 
 this is one of their primary objects ? If I am describing a case 
 of rare occurrence, it will avail me but little to apply it as an 
 argument, why we should commence with the young man, and 
 endeavour to provide him with the means of commencing life 
 well, and with a fair prospect of continuing to improve as he 
 advances. 
 
 Not unfrequently are the anxious efforts of a clergyman 
 and of his family, and the benevolent co-operations of indivi¬ 
 duals in his parish, blighted by the treatment shown to the 
 young after they have left school, and are required to seek, by 
 labour, the means of their own subsistence. After being in¬ 
 structed, watched over, advised, trained to regard the out¬ 
 ward duties of morality and of religion, it is most painful to 
 experience the deleterious effects of the present evil plan 
 upon the good which it was hoped had been effected; and many 
 
96 
 
 a parent’s heart has had bitter cause to regret the removal to 
 a distance of a carefully trained lad, because, on returning 
 home it is discovered, he has lost all regard to the principles in 
 which he had been instructed, and has learnt to defy all at¬ 
 tempts to regain parental authority. 
 
 When the redundant labourers are in possession of their 
 three-acre piece, and the labour-rate has been made subser¬ 
 vient to induce or compel the farmers to employ the labourers 
 who remain, I would recommend that the young man should 
 be offered employment at fair but not high wages, or at such 
 wages as the market affords, or at any rate at such a minimum 
 as the magistrate lias fixed: and should he supplied with half 
 an acre of land to cultivate for himself. In most cases it 
 would ensure his good behaviour. He will not most probably 
 marry so early, nor can he marry so improvidently, as if he had 
 no such means of adding to the wages of his labour. To his 
 case I would immediately apply the advantages of the benefit 
 society , and not permit him to occupy the land, nor feel the 
 necessity of providing him with employment at protecting 
 wages, except as he became a member of a benefit society 
 directly connected with such means of improving his condition. 
 
 The deposit to such benefit or assurance society should be 
 paid quarterly, together with his rent; and in his name, and on 
 his account be transferred for him regularly into the hands of 
 the treasurer of such an institution. The object should be to 
 supply him with perhaps 8a*. a week during sickness, and to 
 assure to him 6<s\ weekly, as an annuity, after he has attained 
 the age of sixty-five years; with liberty to purchase the whole 
 advantage at once, or to redeem it in portions by instalments. 
 And I would further stipulate, that he shall deposit for his 
 wife enough to secure 6«s. a week in case of her sickness, and 
 4 a\ a week after she has attained her 66th year: which would 
 act as a check on too early marriage; and when married, would 
 secure a provision for his wife, in addition to his own. 
 
97 
 
 It does not appear objectionable that the wife, in case of 
 the husband’s decease, be permitted to continue the tenancy 
 of the half acre of land, except in the case of her marrying 
 again to a man already in possession of a garden plot; unless 
 she had by the former husband a family, whom she engaged to 
 maintain with the produce of the land her former husband 
 occupied, and then she might be permitted to retain it. 
 
 To proceed with their children may be only consistent with 
 such good beginning, and I would propose that a deposit should 
 be paid to the treasurer of the benefit society, with the name, 
 and for the advantage of, each child when born, enough to in¬ 
 sure the same advantage for life, which the parents have pro¬ 
 vided for themselves, without the payment of any further sum. 
 It is not in my power, nor would I pretend to ascertain, as I 
 am not sufficiently acquainted with the method of calculating 
 assurances, to assert what amount precisely it would require ; 
 yet as nearly as I can discover, without the assistance of an ac¬ 
 tuary, I presume that the following statement is sufficiently 
 correct to show, how far such scheme would subserve its own 
 intentions. 
 
 The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt 
 allow to savings banks and friendly societies interest amount¬ 
 ing to SI. 16s. 0 \d. per cent., but the interest allowed by the 
 trustees to the depositors of endowment societies is only SI. 
 8s. 5j;d., that the difference may form a fund to provide for the 
 expenses of management. At the rate of 31. 8s. 5\d. per 
 cent., it is found that the deposits, at compound interest, accu¬ 
 mulated half yearly, have become double after a period of 
 twenty years. It is therefore evident, that only half the sum 
 which is necessary to make an assurance at twenty-one years 
 of age will be required to effect an assurance to the same 
 amount of advantage, if deposited with the child as soon as 
 born. On these principles my calculations will be made. 
 
 If then 8/. 5s., deposited at twenty-one years of age, will 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 assure 86*. per week in sickness, it will be requisite to deposit 
 only lialf that amount at birth, which is 4/. 2s. 6d .; and in 
 that case, if the child die before it arrive at twenty-one years 
 of age, so as not to have obtained a vested interest in the 
 society’s funds, the principal sum of 4/. 2s. 6d., exclusive of 
 the accumulated dividends, might be returned to the parent. 
 As, however, there might be on the part of the parent some 
 difficulty to raise so large a sum as 4/. 2s. 6d., at a period too 
 when other expenses occur, the parent may be disposed to 
 inquire, What amount will be necessary, provided I should sti¬ 
 pulate not to ask for the return of the principal under the con¬ 
 tingency of the child’s death ? To which I would reply 21. 1 5s .; 
 because one-third of those now registered die before they reach 
 the age of twenty-one. Now, my Lord, it appears but rea¬ 
 sonable, that the parish should immediately inquire, What sum, 
 if deposited now, at the birth, when the parent assures for the 
 child 8s. per week in sickness after twenty-one years of age, 
 will be sufficient to purchase 6s. per week as an annuity after 
 sixty-five years of age? And the answer is 41. 12s .; or, if it 
 is calculated that one-third of such children will die, we may 
 say SI. 16. 4 d., being two-thirds of the 41. 1 2s., will be enough. 
 
 This calculation is made under the supposition that the child 
 is a male. We may therefore ask, what would be sufficient to 
 insure 06. per week for a woman in sickness after twenty-one, 
 and 46. per week after sixty-five ? The answer is 61. 4s. to 
 secure 06. in sickness, if the deposit is not paid till she has 
 arrived at twenty-one; or the half SI. 2s., if paid when born ; 
 and from which one-tliird is to be deducted if the deposit is 
 not to be claimed in case of death, leaving 21. 16. 4 d.: and the 
 further sum of 61. 46. to secure 46. per week as an annuity 
 after sixty-five; the half SI. 2s.; and the two-thirds 21. 16. 4 d. 
 
 We learn at page 15 of Mr. Rickman’s “ Statement of 
 progress under the population act of 1830,” that out of every 
 1,000 persons of the population, taking the average of the 
 previous five years, twenty-seven baptisms occur, that is, one in 
 
99 
 
 every 37 of the 1,000 persons, annually. And if we say that 
 14 are males, the expense to the parish would be SI. Is. 4 d.x 
 14=42/. 18s. 8d.; and for the 13 females 21. Is. 4c/. xl3= 
 261. 17s. 4 d., together 69/. 16s. This, however, we must re¬ 
 collect, includes the whole number born; and we may presume 
 that nearly, or quite one-third, will never he required to deposit, 
 being the children of parents who are not expected to avail 
 themselves of such means. This will reduce the number to 
 only 18, and if we say 9 of each sex, it will be SI. Is. 4 d.x 
 9=271. 12s., and 21. Is. 4c/. x 9= 18/. 12s., together 46/. 4s. 
 
 By this method it will be seen that we have thrown the 
 expense of providing the 8s. per week for the boy, and the 
 6s. per week for the girl during sickness after twenty-one, upon 
 the parent; and the provision of 6s. per week for the boy, and 
 4s. per week for the girl, as an annuity after 65, upon the 
 parish. That the parent should be thus charged is not, I think, 
 inequitable, as he is only anticipating what he would wish to 
 do for his children, or to see them doing for themselves, when 
 old enough; and especially as he is, by the anticipation of those 
 payments, enabled to secure the advantage at a much smaller 
 expense. He has too at the same time a fair opportunity of 
 appealing to his more opulent neighbours, to exercise their 
 feeling of charity to assist him. There may appear, however, 
 some considerable degree of injustice in requiring the present 
 race of occupiers of the soil, to deposit at the birth of a child 
 a sum to assure an annuity, not to be received till the expira¬ 
 tion of sixty-five years ; for though the benefit of the plan will 
 begin to operate immediately in some degree, yet the chief 
 advantage will be reaped by future occupiers. 
 
 Will it not seem more correct, therefore, my Lord, that this 
 burden should fall upon the owner, demandable perhaps of the 
 tenant, but by law reclaimable from the proprietor? It throws 
 into the hands of the proprietor the means of redemption of 
 this sort of land-tax prospectively, effecting I would suggest 
 the annihilation of the future claims of such child for parochial 
 
 h 2 
 
100 
 
 relief; and by the act of the proprietor taking away tlie evil 
 from tlie occupier, the poor, and the public, and eventually 
 benefiting his own estate. 
 
 The expense attending the children out of a population of 
 1,000 persons, we have seen will be 46/. 4s. We may now 
 endeavour to learn the expense of admitting the parent at 
 twenty-one years of age, which is double of what has been 
 represented as sufficient for the child, viz. 4/. 1 2s., and the 
 double 91. 4s. At a high calculation, there are in every 1,000 
 of the male population about 150 persons between twenty and 
 thirty years of age; and of these only one-third are employed 
 in agriculture, which makes the number for our purpose only 
 50. If then we take the case of a village whose population is 
 1,000 souls, the number of males between the ages of twenty 
 and thirty years employed in agriculture is 25. And if we 
 further suppose the surface to comprise 3,000 acres, the ex¬ 
 pense of assuring for them 6s. per week, after sixty-five years 
 of age, would be 2301., or Is. 6d. per acre; and if they all 
 married, and the average age of their wives was twenty-five 
 years, it would cost 155/., or Is. per acre; and if we include 
 the expense of providing similar annuities for the children, we 
 must add 46/. 4s., or rather less than 4 cl. per acre. 
 
 We must not forget, too, that these sums of Is. Gd. and Is. 
 per acre, are not annual disbursements; for the population of 
 1,000 souls does not produce 25 young men every year. It is 
 only at the commencement of the adoption of the plan that 
 such outlay could be required; the annual expense would be 
 very small, and that only till those who are between the ages 
 of one and twenty-one years were exhausted, the children 
 in future being provided for at birth: the 46/. 4s., or the 4 d. 
 per acre alone, would be the regular yearly burden. 
 
 To make this rule applicable to a population of 1,000 per¬ 
 sons and a surface of 3,000 acres alone, is not my intention; 
 but I would suggest that any gentleman may try the effect of 
 
101 
 
 it in his own parish or on his own estate, by inquiring what is 
 the number of labourers between the ages of twenty and 
 thirty years, and then multiplying them by 91. 4s., to purchase 
 an annuity of 6s. per week after sixty-five years of age; and 
 multiplying the same number by 61. 4s., to assure their wives 
 4s. per week. This amount, divided by the acres, gives the 
 cost it would be per acre. By a similar process he may ascer¬ 
 tain what per acre would be the expense of providing for their 
 children, if equal annuities were purchased at their birth. 
 
 It becomes, therefore, a matter of inquiry, whether it would 
 not be advisable for the land-owner to meet the difficulty, if, 
 at least, he possesses the whole of the land of the parish, by 
 applying such system to his own estate; though it would be 
 far preferable to procure the appointment of commissioners 
 to carry the plan into operation universally. 
 
 We have not, however, noticed with sufficient minuteness 
 what is the case of the young man, with regard to his method 
 of securing for himself the 8s. per week during sickness, from 
 the age of twenty-one years to sixty-five, the period when his 
 claim for such assistance would expire, because he would begin 
 to receive the 6s. as a weekly annuity. And it is, I presume, 
 sufficiently correct, when I state that he could secure both 
 those of 8s. for himself, and 6s. for his wife, by the monthly 
 payment of Is. 6d ., or 18s. a year, which is scarcely so much 
 as he is now required to pay to a friendly society established 
 on the old system of self-exhaustion. 
 
 And now, my Lord, I think we can show the advantage of 
 the minuteness of the specification of the items of expenditure 
 as referred to in Letter I. and as exhibited in the Appendix (B); 
 for if we could learn from any correct data what are the chances 
 that their wives would become widows, at what average of age, 
 how many with families, and with what number of children, 
 particulars ascertainable, I presume, only from the correct 
 
102 
 
 return of such parochial documents, it would not he difficult 
 for the young man, in conjunction with the proprietor, to 
 form an assurance club for the provision of the widows until 
 sixty-five, and of the children till they could earn their own 
 expenses; thus making the plan, as far as it regards this por¬ 
 tion of it, sustentary of itself. 
 
 If such institution were regularly established, and in opera¬ 
 tion, it is easy to discover what amount would he required 
 to place in the same benefit society, other men above the age 
 of thirty years, having a small quantity of land; and if it 
 were difficult because the amount of the deposit would be more 
 than they could provide, the plan recommended in the report of 
 the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Poor 
 Laws in 1817 might he adopted. We find it at page 12. “ Your 
 committee are of opinion that at the outset of those institu¬ 
 tions, parishes should he permitted to place, by contributions 
 from the parochial funds, those who have advanced in years 
 without having made any provision of this nature, on the foot¬ 
 ing of advantage on which they would have stood, if they had 
 commenced the contributions at an earlier age.” 
 
 There may be some persons who could not be employed 
 with advantage by the farmers, nor be admitted into the 
 benefit society, who might, notwithstanding, derive much ad¬ 
 vantage from the occupation of a portion of land: and others, 
 for whose support some provision might be made, by occasional 
 or even constant employment upon the land taken by the 
 overseers under the 12th section of 59 Geo. 3. cap. 12. Some 
 widows, too, might be willing to cultivate a portion of land, 
 especially if they had boys, instead of receiving parochial 
 relief, or with less relief. These and other means might be 
 applied to those who were not included in the new system, to 
 remove in some degree the burden they would otherwise occa¬ 
 sion. To diminish the expenses of those who must be assisted 
 
103 
 
 under the former regime, many expedients might be employ¬ 
 ed, all tending to hasten the dissolution of its lingering ex¬ 
 istence. 
 
 Here, however, I am disposed to desist from pursuing the 
 details of the plan, as they appear capable of application to 
 the mischief in a variety of ways; being contented with the 
 efficiency of the principle. The chief objection made by the 
 poor against the friendly society, is the obligation to which the 
 contributor subjects himself to pay in youth for what he may 
 not live to require; and that, too, for the purpose of saving 
 the parish, if he should live and become impotent. Perhaps 
 it would be a wise provision in political economy, to permit a 
 parish to expend a part of the fund raised for relieving the 
 poor, for the purpose of anticipating by a present small expen¬ 
 diture a future though remote liability to a much greater dis¬ 
 bursement; though there are objections to it in agricultural 
 districts. To grant leave to landed proprietors to do so, would 
 I hope be unexceptionable. To a benevolent mind it must be 
 most delightful and cheering, to witness the existence and 
 operation of a scheme calculated, not speculatively but reason¬ 
 ably, to provide an aged couple in the decline of life with a 
 fund they cannot alienate, and which cannot fail, of 10,v. a 
 week. It need not prevent them from earning more if they 
 can; neither should they be deprived of the half acre of land. 
 The labour-market, it is probable, would not be so much op¬ 
 pressed with numbers, and we should not see the miserable old 
 man working on the roads, nor applying to the overseer for 
 relief, but receiving at the office of the parochial benefit society 
 his weekly income, an income the receipt of which should 
 never stamp him with the disgrace of being a pauper. This is 
 to consider him in the lowest grade; higher far might he 
 rank among his neighbours, if he have at any time assured 
 more for himself in the benefit society, or if he have made 
 deposits in the savings bank. These are open to him during 
 
104 
 
 any period of prosperity; yet should adversity reach him, and 
 his hoardings in these be exhausted, he would have a comfort¬ 
 able provision in the annuity arising from the benefit or assur¬ 
 ance society. There might some cases occur which would 
 require the benefit of the society to be withheld, such as 
 having from his own resources a certain sum in his own right, 
 when it would not be unjust to refuse him what had been 
 provided by the bounty of another; or if at any time he 
 became possessed of property, some degree of discretion should 
 be exercised by the commissioners, whether he should receive 
 any or what amount of annuity. 
 
 That most fruitful source of litigation, too, the law of settle¬ 
 ment, might be simplified, if this scheme were brought into 
 operation, by rendering the place of birth and of registration 
 in the benefit society the real settlement in the case of the 
 male, and of the female too until marriage, when her interest 
 might be retained in the parish where she is born, or trans¬ 
 ferred to any other to which she might remove. And it would 
 abolish another most injurious portion of the law of settle¬ 
 ment, namely, that gained by hiring and service. 
 
 Persuaded I shall weary your Lordship by proceeding, I 
 beg you will 
 
 Believe me to be, &c. 
 
 P.S. An objection may be made against the allowance of 
 6s. for the man and 4s. for the woman, as being. too liberal 
 after sixty-five years of age. To this objection I would reply, 
 that my chief object is to exhibit apian; the exact amount 
 of the allowance is of little importance, for it is very probable 
 it ought to vary according to local circumstances. I am safe 
 in mentioning a maximum. At the same time, when we re¬ 
 collect how small the present sacrifice is, when compared with 
 the ultimate saving, to the proprietor, I would advocate with 
 him the cause of the poor for the allowances I have calculated. 
 
105 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 When we remember that the occurrence of calamity, occa¬ 
 sioned chiefly by sickness, is the principal cause why the agri¬ 
 cultural labourer becomes poor, because it is a season of addi¬ 
 tional expense, frequently with less income, and sometimes of 
 long duration; it is evident that the assurance of a weekly sum 
 in the benefit society in case of sickness is of great value ; as it 
 usually provides enough to secure subsistence for himself and 
 family, and preserves the integrity of his independence: while 
 it affords the hope of a speedy recovery of his former con¬ 
 dition when the sickness is over. The calculations of the 
 benefit society should be made to comprise only the assurance 
 of such sum during sickness, and should be separate from the 
 expenses produced by the necessity for medicines and me¬ 
 dical attendance. Dispensaries ought probably to form 
 a portion of the system, to which all the poor might have 
 recourse, whether members of the benefit society or not. A 
 dispensary of this kind has been formed by a very benevolent 
 and talented person, Mr. Smith, surgeon, of Southam, in War¬ 
 wickshire. In some places where it has been established, 
 considerable benefit has accrued from the diminution of poor- 
 rate it has effected by itself alone: and is highly calculated to 
 operate very advantageously when in conjunction with the 
 letting of land and the formation of a benefit society. I am 
 the more disposed to recommend Mr. Smith’s plan for dispen¬ 
 saries, because the expense of attending the poor is so locally 
 diversified, that we cannot expect one regular price to be fixed 
 
106 
 
 for all parts of tlie kingdom; and that the exclusion of the 
 charges for the medical department of the system, from the 
 calculations for the rate of assurance, will render those calcu¬ 
 lations more correct, and less likely to he affected by the irre¬ 
 gularity in the disbursements for the cure of sickness. 
 
 To Workhouses I have not yet particularly alluded. That 
 they must be considered as expedients to reduce the expendi¬ 
 ture, and not destruents to annihilate it, prevents them from 
 occupying any specific place in the system I have proposed ; 
 though they are unquestionably valuable if the old regime is 
 to continue in full force. The object of the workhouse is to 
 cut off the application of a large number of persons for assist¬ 
 ance ; and then to provide, at as low a rate as possible, for 
 those who must be supported. But this renders them perma¬ 
 nently paupers, and offers an inducement to be careless, because 
 it is known that the last alternative is the workhouse. When 
 the workhouse is made repulsive, the poor are at first likely to 
 suffer much inconvenience, till they can find means of sub¬ 
 sistence without coming into it; and then they are thankful 
 for having been compelled to look out for such means of pro¬ 
 viding for themselves. Nothing can be more truly injurious to 
 the poor than to provide them with a plan for being dependent; 
 and perhaps nothing more beneficial than to assist them to help 
 themselves to escape from reliance upon others. The difficulty, 
 however, lies with a country village, where the agricultural 
 labouring population is excessive. In this instance, a work- 
 house, it might be said, would be beneficial: I grant it, but it 
 cannot provide employment for thirty or forty labourers. If a 
 workhouse were to be erected, they must be supported out of 
 that workhouse, for they could not be received into it. Yet on 
 this point I feel it is vain to attempt to come to any general 
 opinion, till we are in possession of the return to be made to 
 Parliament of the distinction between the expenditure for 
 employment and for relief, for the year ending March 1832. 
 
107 
 
 It must not, however, be supposed that I can indulge for one 
 moment any feeling of dislike to the system, after having been 
 honoured with the opportunity of having the whole plan of the 
 workhouse at Hatfield shown to me by your Lordship. In 
 that establishment I perceived the most judicious arrange¬ 
 ments, well calculated to reduce the expenditure as much as 
 possible for those persons relieved, at the same time that it 
 rendered them more comfortable than they could possibly 
 become out of the house. The relief being granted in kind 
 to out-door paupers is very important. The employment for 
 the men being calculated by the piece instead of the day; and 
 the children having work provided for them under covert, assist 
 materially in the attempt to reduce the expenditure. I should, 
 however, hope to see the workhouse unneeded in agricultural 
 districts, if the system I have already developed were adopted. 
 
 At length I have arrived at the conclusion of the plan I 
 proposed to place before your Lordship. But before I take my 
 leave of it, I would remark that there is, in my humble esti¬ 
 mation of the importance of effecting an improvement in the 
 poor laws, a point of political economy too important to be 
 overlooked; and I cannot conceal from you my conviction of its 
 value. It is, that a new system of poor laws forms a part only 
 of a grand scheme of combined effort. 
 
 At the first glance it may seem preposterous to suppose that 
 the renewal of the Bank Charter can have anything to do with 
 the system of poor laws, and it may be deemed irrelevant to 
 allude to it. Yet, I presume, that the only broad foundation 
 of which we are now in possession for erecting any beneficial 
 scheme for the future, is the system of the savings bank. 
 Here we have a foundation tried, and found by experience to 
 be of practical utility, extending itself, or capable of being 
 extended, over the whole realm. The late panic of 1832 
 proves the importance of placing the savings banks in better 
 keeping, which I am happy to find is in contemplation. But 
 
108 
 
 a serious question is, Whether the savings banks can have any 
 satisfactory security given to them without a Bank Charter ? 
 Such is the imposing character of the savings banks now, that 
 the system should receive all that protection which will warrant 
 the confidence of the lower orders of society. This is the more 
 evident, when we bring the friendly societies in the kingdom 
 into connexion with the savings banks, which connexion is 
 gradually progressing to its completion.* But if neither the 
 savings bank nor the friendly society is to have the guarantee 
 of a national bank, because the profits of money loans are to 
 be placed at the mercy of a speculative market, it seems a 
 moral impossibility to say what degree of interest government 
 can afford to give to the depositors of savings banks and friendly 
 societies for the loan of their hard cash. It must certainly be 
 very low, if government can give any security; and very high 
 if it cannot, to induce the depositor to speculate. It is not 
 improbable that he will be tempted by a higher rate of interest 
 to place his money in the hands of speculators, and then all 
 his attempts to provide by present sacrifices for a certain 
 support in old age may be delusive. I earnestly hope we shall 
 have an enlightened and sound Bank Charter, which will inspire 
 the humbler classes with confidence, while attempting to secure 
 the advantages offered by the savings bank and benefit society 
 systems. 
 
 The controlling and regulating effect of a system of Corn 
 Laws , too, seems absolutely expedient to preserve the integrity 
 and combination of these different materials, and to render 
 them as it were a suitable atmosphere to maintain the vitality 
 of our national prosperity. The period put to the system of 
 . fraud formerly practised in making up the averages; the pre¬ 
 vention of that terrific and overwhelming habit of specula¬ 
 tion; the quiescent regularity in the price of the precious 
 
 * There are nearly 4,500 friendly societies in England and Wales, which 
 place their funds in savings banks. 
 
109 
 
 metals; the uniform reduction in the value of our own domestic 
 productions of manufacture ; the certitude of sufficient returns 
 for the capital employed in the various modes of farming; the 
 opportunity of employing the labourer, and the assurance of 
 rent to the owner; all combine to solicit, perhaps I shall not be 
 wrong in saying to demand, the warranted continuance of 
 wholesome corn laws. What could hinder a healthful state of 
 agriculture, if the farmer knew certainly that he might expend 
 his capital with security, because the corn law guaranteed to 
 him its own protection uninterruptedly? If there he supposed 
 to exist any question of the value of such system, it will he 
 necessary to inquire into the quantity of corn grown upon the 
 continent, and the price it obtains there, in comparison with 
 the quantity and price at home; and it must be conspicuous 
 that no more is grown than is generally required to meet the 
 consumption. The grand question is not, therefore, whether 
 there should he a corn law, hut, what should he the scale of 
 prices which is to regulate the duty. If the duty be removed 
 too soon, as is more than probably the case with the present 
 scale, it follows of necessity that the value of the precious 
 metals is enhanced, and the country suffers in a double ratio, 
 first, by the exportation of bullion in exchange for corn, and 
 secondly, by a higher rate of exchange; both operating too as 
 a check to the consumption of our own manufactures. It is 
 undoubtedly a question of serious importance, whether the 
 country has yet recovered the effect produced four years ago, 
 by an occasion of this nature. Agriculture is still quailing 
 under the remembrance of it; and the farmer is so timid in his 
 expenditure, that our land does not produce more perhaps than 
 seven or at most eight-tenths of what it would, if the farmer, 
 the manufacturer, the tradesman, the mechanic, the labourer, 
 and the landed proprietor, could behold each other without 
 jealousy; because their respective interests were secured by a 
 judicious system of domestic economy. 
 
 I have alluded to the manufacturer; for the price of bullion 
 
110 
 
 and the price of corn will affect the foreign demand for our 
 manufactures in our nearest market, the continent of Europe. 
 To regulate that demand, by lowering the price of the commodity 
 to the extent of maintaining that demand in full vigour, forms 
 one of the principal features in political economy. Import, 
 export, excise, customs, all feel the impulse. How superlative¬ 
 ly important is it then to have all these means under control! 
 If the rate of interest be too high or too low, it may be 
 in some measure regulated, when the government have a 
 due influence over the national bank; if the corn laws are 
 admitting too freely, or restricting too rigidly the importation 
 of grain, it is easily capable of adjustment; if the manufac¬ 
 tures are too languid, the value of the precious metals should 
 be investigated. But if the present system of the poor laws 
 in their numerous enactments be permitted to continue un¬ 
 altered, the measures adopted to restore the equipoise, when 
 disturbed, must be remedial, because they are not preventive. 
 Two parts of the system are upon the whole working well, I 
 mean the savings banks and the corn laws, and the effect of 
 these is seen to operate favourably upon our manufactures. 
 The poor laws now require revision, and, as far as I have been 
 able to discover, are capable of being adjusted, to form, in 
 combination, a most skilful project for a prosperous political 
 economy. 
 
 I most earnestly beg your Lordship to forgive the great 
 demand I have made upon your time and patience in perusing 
 my statements. The only apology I have to offer arises 
 from the importance of the subject, which you have always 
 duly appreciated; and the urbanity of your manner, which has 
 encouraged me to proceed. But before I take final leave of 
 the subject, I would observe, that we may hope to be honoured 
 shortly with the result of the investigation, instituted in con¬ 
 sequence of His most gracious Majesty’s commission. When 
 the commissioners make their report, we shall, I ardently 
 
Ill 
 
 hope and expect, be presented with a mass of most valuable 
 intelligence, and have promulged to us some efficient plan for 
 improving the system in all its branches: when we shall dis¬ 
 cover how far any suggestions I have made will he found 
 correct and worthy of adoption. 
 
 The apprehension expressed in the instructions to assistant 
 commissioners, that the poor-rate is likely, because of its 
 regular progression, to consume the landed interest, has led 
 me to make the following calculations:— 
 
 1801. 1811. 1821. 1831. 
 
 Population . 8,872,980 . 10,103,676 . 11,978,875 . 13,894,574 
 
 Rates ... £ 4,077,891 . £ 6,656,106 . £ 6,358,709 . £ 6,798,888 
 
 Per head . .454=9$.2^. .655 = 135. Id. .535 = 10$.8^. .489=9$. 9^(7. 
 
 The average expenditure for the nineteen years ending March 
 
 1830, has been 6,471,888/., and for the year ending March 
 
 1831, 6,798,888/., forming a difference of 327,000/.; while 
 the population had increased from 10,163,676 to 13,894,574, 
 forming a difference of 3,730,898. It is evident, therefore, 
 that the country has not augmented her expenditure so 
 rapidly as she has multiplied her population, but that she has 
 diminished her expenses, relatively per head of the population, 
 exactly one-fourth, as 9s. 9 \d. is only three-fourths of the 13s. 
 1 c/., while at the same time the price of wheat for the year 
 1831, was much the same as the average of the nineteen pre¬ 
 ceding years. And if we view the subject in connexion with 
 the population alone, these calculations will tend to allay our 
 fears: hut when we recollect that the surface of our country 
 is not elastic, and cannot he made to expand with the increase 
 of the number of its inhabitants; and that eighty years since 
 the rates were only 5d. per acre; thirty years ago 2s. 4 \d .; 
 hut in 1829 that they had augmented to 3s. 9 d. per acre, on 
 the area of all England, excluding Wales, we must unite with 
 the commissioners in expressions of alarm. Our apprehension 
 will, however, he greatly moderated, on discovering that for 
 
112 
 
 twenty years tlie average amount of the rate per acre has been 
 very even, although the population has increased per cent. 
 
 Just at the present juncture, when the effect of the Corn Law 
 can be ascertained correctly; when consideration must he given 
 to the Bank Charter; when the Commissioners for the Reduc¬ 
 tion of the National Debt must be shielded against the effects 
 of a sudden withdrawal of any very large amount of cash by 
 the depositors in savings hanks; when the advantage of a 
 system of deferred annuities on a reduced scale may be dis¬ 
 cussed ; when it is not decided whether poor laws shall he 
 provided for Ireland; when the labouring poor are so wickedly 
 instructed to he dissatisfied with their condition; when the 
 interests of agriculture are possibly below par ; no subject of 
 domestic economy will be more worthy the deliberation of 
 Parliament during the session, than an improvement in the 
 Poor Laws. 
 
 Hoping that my attempt to draw your Lordship’s attention 
 more closely to the subject, will not, therefore, be deemed un¬ 
 seasonable, 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Very faithfully. 
 
 Your Lordship’s 
 
 Most obedient and very humble servant, 
 
 Charles Wetherell. 
 
 By field Rectory, 
 
 5th March, 1833. 
 
113 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 After I liad finished my last letter I received the “ Abstract 
 of returns of the amount of money levied and expended for 
 the relief of the poor in each county in England and Wales, in 
 the year ending 25tli of March 1832.” I am much gratified 
 at the opportunity of placing it before your Lordship, because 
 it contains the separation of the money paid out of the rates 
 for labour, from the sum paid for relief in general, and the 
 number of persons to whom it was paid; first, for repair of 
 roads, and secondly, for other parish work; to the importance 
 of requiring which returns, I begged in my evidence to call 
 the attention of the Committee. 
 
 I have made the same selection of counties as Mr. Slaney 
 did, and have united both classes of persons together, and both 
 amounts of expenditure; and then, after summing them up, 
 have shown what is the expense per head. 
 
 The Northern counties: 
 
 
 Persons. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per Head. 
 
 York, E. . . . 
 
 497 . 
 
 £. 
 
 . . 2,452 
 
 s. 
 
 13 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 Do. N. . 
 
 752 . 
 
 . . 3,172 
 
 5 
 
 
 Do. W. . . . 
 
 . 1,217 . 
 
 . . 5,481 
 
 8 
 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 . 5,204 . 
 
 . . 7,683 
 
 1 
 
 
 Westmorland 
 
 38 . 
 
 . . 128 
 
 6 
 
 
 Cumberland . 
 
 51 . 
 
 . . 234 
 
 16 
 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 197 . 
 
 . . 1,312 
 
 13 
 
 
 Durham . 
 
 550 . 
 
 . . 2,280 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8,506 
 
 22,705 
 
 3 
 
 2 13 4x 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 The Southern counties: 
 
 
 Persons. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per Head. 
 
 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 £. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Kent . . 
 
 . . . 4,306 
 
 . . . 26,296 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 Sussex 
 
 . . . 5,784 
 
 . . . 41,324 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 2 10* 
 
 Surrey. . 
 
 . . . 2,789 
 
 . . . 20,341 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 Oxford 
 
 . . . 3,270 
 
 . . . 16,339 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Wilts . . 
 
 . . . 2,257 
 
 . . . 12,489 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Berks . 
 
 . . . 1,851 
 
 . . . 9,999 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 Norfolk . 
 
 . . . 3,310 
 
 . . . 18,710 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 Dorset. . 
 
 ... 799 
 
 . . . 4,764 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 24,366 
 
 150,264 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 3 0 
 
 The difference exhibited is 
 
 so striking, first, in 
 
 the numbe 
 
 but particularly in the amount, as to convince us that it is not 
 the misapplication of a scale of wages or relief, but the actual 
 want of employment for the population: for in Sussex the 
 5,784 persons cost 2s. 9 d. each per week for the whole year, 
 or as much as would be required for their absolute maintenance. 
 In Surrey the persons cost more per head than in Sussex. 
 
 I have added other agricultural counties, to prove the value 
 of providing work if it were possible under shelter, because it 
 is in these counties the burden is most oppressive. 
 
 Other agricultural counties: 
 
 
 Persons. 
 
 Amount. Per Head. 
 
 
 
 £. 
 
 s. £. s. d. 
 
 Bedford . 
 
 . . 2,697 . 
 
 . . 11,597 
 
 13 
 
 Buckingham. 
 
 . . 3,258 . 
 
 . . 15,623 
 
 4 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 . . 2,071 . 
 
 . . 11,254 
 
 8 
 
 Essex . . . 
 
 . . 3,686 . 
 
 . . 15,328 
 
 0 
 
 Hertford . 
 
 . . 1,771 . 
 
 . . 10,862 
 
 4 
 
 Northampton 
 
 . . 3,024 . 
 
 . . 12,447 
 
 8 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 . . 3,035 . 
 
 . . 18,708 
 
 14 
 
 Southampton 
 
 . . 3,544 . 
 
 . . 17,266 
 
 18 
 
 
 23,086 
 
 113,088 
 
 9 4 18 0 
 
 * Or 2s. 9 d. per head for fifty-two weeks. 
 
115 
 
 The manufacturing counties I have not omitted, that we 
 may arrive with more complete conviction at the same conclu¬ 
 sion, for there the work is done principally under shelter. 
 
 Manufacturing counties : 
 
 
 Persons. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per Head. 
 
 
 
 £. 
 
 S. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 Chester 
 
 808 . . 
 
 3,136 
 
 8 
 
 
 Derby .... 
 
 688 . . 
 
 3,942 
 
 14 
 
 
 Lancaster. 
 
 . 1,125 . . 
 
 5,153 
 
 0 
 
 
 Leicester . 
 
 . 1,128 . . 
 
 . 4,915 
 
 12 
 
 
 Nottingham . 
 
 00 
 
 2,053 
 
 7 
 
 3 10 2£* 
 
 Stafford . . 
 
 409 . . 
 
 1,798 
 
 17 
 
 
 Warwick . 
 
 581 . . 
 
 . 2,867 
 
 8 
 
 
 York, W. . . 
 
 . 1,217 . . 
 
 . 5,481 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6,543 
 
 29,348 
 
 14 
 
 4 9 8i 
 
 Yet after all we 
 
 are but little 
 
 advantaged by the prominent 
 
 exhibition of this item in the return, because it accounts for 
 only about one-twentietli part of the whole expenditure. Out 
 of every 20 1 . : for what have the other nineteen been spent ? 
 Our inability to make a correct reply rather strengthens the 
 arguments I have used, in support of the importance of endea¬ 
 vouring to disentangle the remainder more entirely. 
 
 If the return be correctly made from all places, which I am 
 reluctant to suspect, it will exhibit what necessity there will 
 be for encouraging emigration, and to what extent. But 
 before this point can be perfectly cleared up, we must wait for 
 the abstract of answers and returns under the Population Act, 
 11 Geo. 4. c. 30, article “ Enumeration,” where we shall 
 learn the “ number of labourers employed in agriculture” in 
 each parish; and also, for what I hope we shall soon be favoured 
 with, not the abstract only of the poor-rates for the year 
 1831-2, but the actual return from each place in all the coun¬ 
 ties of England, or at least of the burdened counties, for until 
 
 * Or Is. 4 d. per head for fifty-two weeks. 
 
116 
 
 it is known over what towns or villages the burden broods, we 
 cannot learn whether emigration is the specific remedy, or 
 whether it can he so applied by any legal enactment. 
 
 By adding the remaining counties, your Lordship will have 
 a view of the whole of England. 
 
 Remaining counties: 
 
 
 Persons. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Per Head. 
 
 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 Cornwall .... 
 
 554 . . 
 
 . 3,163 
 
 19 
 
 
 Devon. 
 
 1,028 . . 
 
 . 4,471 
 
 17 
 
 
 Gloucester . 
 
 1,304 . . 
 
 6,893 
 
 6 
 
 
 Hereford .... 
 
 163 . . 
 
 757 
 
 4 
 
 
 Huntingdon . 
 
 913 . . 
 
 . 2,142 
 
 7 
 
 
 Middlesex 
 
 1,750 . . 
 
 . 13,281 
 
 11 
 
 
 Monmoutli . 
 
 65 . . 
 
 283 
 
 6 
 
 
 Rutland .... 
 
 189 . . 
 
 914 
 
 15 
 
 
 Salop. 
 
 168 . . 
 
 909 
 
 10 
 
 
 Somerset .... 
 
 1,389 . . 
 
 5,003 
 
 2 
 
 
 Worcester 
 
 288 . . 
 
 835 
 
 17 
 
 
 Total of England 
 
 69,095 . . 
 
 . 349,722 
 
 15 
 
 5 1 1 
 
 All Wales. . . 
 
 1,240 . . 
 
 3,630 
 
 0 
 
 2 11 H 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Form of obtaining Poor Returns. 
 
 HOUSE op COMMONS. 
 
 Mercurij , 3° die Novembris, 1830. 
 
 ORDERED, 
 
 THAT the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor, of every 
 Parish, Township, or other Place, in England and Wales, do prepare— 
 An Account, showing the Total Amount of Money levied for Poor 
 Rates and County Rates, in the Year ending on 25 th March 1830, 
 upon such Parish, Township, or other Place maintaining its own 
 Poor,—and also, the Total Amount of Money expended in that 
 Year; distinguishing in the said Account, the Amount of Money 
 paid for any other purpose than the Relief of the Poor ;■—and that 
 such Churchwardens and Overseers do, as soon as may be, transmit 
 such Account to the Clerk of the House of Commons ; stating in 
 addition to such Account, whether any Select Vestry has been 
 formed, or an Assistant Overseer appointed, by virtue of the Act 
 59 Geo. III. c. 12 ;—and any other Observations which may be 
 thought necessary. 
 
 J. H, LEY, 
 
 Cl. Dorn. Com. 
 
 To the Churchwardens or Overseers : 
 
 BE pleased to turn over, and write on the two next pages, the Name of the County 
 and Place, and your Answer, as required by the above Order, and then return this 
 Sheet by the Post; a direction being printed at the back of it for that purpose. 
 
 THE Totals of the Poor Rate Accounts annually exhibited to the Magistrates 
 within fourteen days after the appointment of the new Parish Officers (under the 
 Acts 43 Eliz. c. 2; and 50 Geo. III. c. 49,) will enable the present Parish Officers 
 to answer the above Questions. 
 
 a 
 
11 
 
 APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 County of 
 
 Hundred 
 
 o r C of 
 Wapentake ) 
 
 
 ACCOUNT IN OBEDIENCE TO THE 
 
 POOR RATES. 
 
 Total Amount of MONEY Levied . 
 
 Total Amount of MONEY Expended . 
 
 Deduct—Amount of MONEY paid for any Purpose! 
 or Purposes other than the Relief of the Poor . .) 
 
 Expended for the Relief of the Poor . . . £. 
 
 Observations, if any. 
 
 Signed this 
 
 day of 1830 
 
 [Name of usual Post-Office Town.] 
 
 '} 
 
 by us 
 
 at 
 
 near 
 
APPENDIX (A.), 
 
 hi 
 
 Parish of 
 
 Township 
 
 or 
 
 Tything 
 
 } 
 
 )RDER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 For the Year ending 
 
 25 March 1830. 
 
 Q UESTIONS. 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 1.—Has any SELECT VESTRY been formed by virtue 
 of the Act 59 Geo. III. c. 12? 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 2.—Has an ASSISTANT OVERSEER been appointed 
 by virtue of the Act 59 Geo. III. c. 12 ? 
 
 
 
 
 [The Parish Officers to sign here.'] 
 
CO 
 
 «o 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 Ph 
 
 a 
 
 £> 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 PP 
 
 sc 
 
 S 
 
 L o 
 
 Pp 
 
 Us 
 
 
 ^ Je 
 
 Pp 
 
 ^ E*h 
 
 O 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 <u 
 
 Ph 
 
 S 
 
 eS 
 
 g s; 
 
 ,g> 
 
 « 
 
V 
 
 
 The Mode of keeping Parish Accounts y 
 
 Referred to at page 7. 
 
 1st. The pages numbered vi to xvii contain the Regular Expenditure , as it 
 arises weekly. These accounts are arranged under various heads, as “ Widows,” 
 “ Widows with Children,” &c. &c. and they exhibit the weekly, quarterly, half- 
 yearly, and annual expense incurred by each person relieved, and of the whole 
 number of persons under each separate head : pages vi to xi being the accounts 
 for the first half of the year, and pages xii to xvii the accounts for the second 
 half of the year ; the whole being conducted by double entry. 
 
 2ndly. At pages xviii and xix the Irregular Expenditure , as it arises acci¬ 
 dentally, is seen. These accounts are arranged under different heads, as 
 “ Apprentices,” “ Funerals,” “ County Rate,” “ Incidental Expenses,” &c. &c. 
 They exhibit the totals of each, and of the whole ; likewise by double entry; 
 and comprise, with the former accounts, the entire Expenditure. 
 
 3rdly. Pages xx and xxi contain the Receipts, arranged similarly with the 
 Irregular Expenditure. 
 
 4thly. At pages xxii and xxiii are seen the Annual Account of Expenditure 
 and Receipts, as it ought to be presented before the Magistrates for their 
 approbation and allowance, after the close of the year.* 
 
 These accounts are not to be considered in any other light than as exhibitory 
 of a method which might possibly be adopted; and are intended merely to 
 suggest a system, and not to exemplify any particular parish. 
 
 * For the form for obtaining Returns to Parliament annually of the totals of these 
 accounts, see Appendix (C.) 
 
VI 
 
 Regular Expenditure— First Quarter 
 
 1831. Mar. April. May. June. 
 
 _' -- t “ - - iA ■■ 1 —*N , -- K - 
 
 Description and Name. 
 
 26. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 7. 
 
 14. 
 
 21. 
 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 First 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Widows. 
 
 Douglas. 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s.d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 .?. d. 
 
 3 0 
 
 s n 
 
 s. d. 
 
 3 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 • • • • 
 
 1 6 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 1 9 0 
 
 1 13 0 
 
 0 9 0 
 
 Maud . 
 
 
 Rloxham. 
 
 
 16 16 
 
 1 
 
 Widows 
 with Children. 
 
 French.. 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 6 6 
 
 6 6 
 
 7 6 
 
 7 6 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 11 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 3 18 0 
 
 2 0 0 
 
 Allen.„. 
 
 Single Women. 
 
 Kate Dirt . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 _ 
 
 14 0 
 
 14 0 14 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 5 18 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 o n 
 
 2 6 
 
 0 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 1 6 0 
 
 Hannah Dodd . 
 
 
 Widowers. 
 
 Hpnry Wimhnsh... 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 10 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 2 5 6 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 Thomas Newberry 
 
 Widowers 
 with Children. 
 
 William Brown .... 
 
 Charles Sewell. 
 
 • • • • 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 I 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 Old Married Men. 
 
 Daniel Stanton .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 3 5 0 
 
 John Cadd . 
 
 
 Old Married Men 
 with Children. 
 
 George Jeffs . 
 
 4 
 
 • • • • 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 110 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 40 040 0 
 
 41 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 50 6 
 
 50 6 47 6 46 6 
 
 ! 
 
 28 6 0 
 
Regular Expenditure— Second Quarter 
 
 VII 
 
 June. July. 
 
 25. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 • 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 s • 
 
 2 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 3 6 
 
 36 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 -s r 
 
 August. 
 
 __a-- 
 
 September. 
 
 23. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 30. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 13. 
 
 20 . 
 
 27. 
 
 3. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 16 16 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6: 3 6 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 ! 
 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 46 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0 14 0,14 0 
 
 I i 
 
 10 . 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 61 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 46 6,46 6 
 
 46 6 46 6 
 
 46 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 46 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 3 6 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 7 0 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 015 0 
 
 9 0 9 0, 9 0 
 
 7 0 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 17. 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 24. 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 16 16 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 9 0 
 
 Second 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 £. s. d 
 
 1 13 0 
 
 1 1 0 
 
 2 14 0 
 
 4 4 0 
 
 5 12 0 
 
 9 16 0 
 
 1 15 0 
 1 8 0 
 
 3 3 0 
 
 2 9 0 
 0 14 0 
 
 3 3 0 
 
 2 16 0 
 1 1 0 
 
 3 17 0 
 
 2 16 0 
 3 10 0 
 
 6 6 0 
 
 7 0 7 0 
 
 4 18 0 
 
 
 I 
 
 50 6 50 6150 6 
 
 50 6,50 6] 33 17 0 
 I * 
 
 * This quarter contains fourteen weeks. 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 £. s. 
 
 d. 
 
 3 2 
 
 0 
 
 1 13 
 
 0 
 
 1 10 
 
 0 
 
 6 5 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 0 
 
 7 12 
 
 0 
 
 
 15 14 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 3 7 
 
 6 
 
 2 14 
 
 0 
 
 6 1 
 
 6 
 
 4 14 
 
 6 
 
 1 7 
 
 0 
 
 6 1 
 
 6 
 
 5 8 
 
 0 
 
 1 1 
 
 0 
 
 6 9 
 
 0 
 
 5 8 
 
 0 
 
 6 15 
 
 0 
 
 12 3 
 
 0 
 
 9 9 
 
 0 
 
 62 3 
 
 0 
 
Regular Expenditure— First Quarter , continued. 
 
 VIII 
 
 1831. 
 
 Description and Name. 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 Single Men. 
 
 John Read 
 
 Children. 
 Bonham’s ..... 
 
 Whorley’s. 
 
 Boys. 
 Ludgate’s ... 
 Carvil’s. 
 
 Side List. 
 Dan. Gubbins.... 
 Samuel Lawrence 
 William Howes .. 
 
 .Esther Watson .. 
 
 Nurses. 
 
 John Jeffs.... 
 Mary Iliorns . 
 Widow Maud. 
 
 Casual Relief. 
 Thomas Luckett 
 
 Carried forward ... J. 
 
 Amounts carried \ 
 forward. 1 
 
 Mar. 
 
 
 April. 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 May. 
 
 
 
 June. 
 
 —-- 
 
 
 26. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 7. 
 
 14. 
 
 21. 
 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 
 “ 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 First 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 5. J 
 
 ,9. (7. 
 
 s. d 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d 
 
 s. d. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 40 0 
 
 1 1 
 
 40 0 
 
 40 0 
 
 41 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 50 6 
 
 I 
 
 50 6 
 
 47 6 
 
 46 6 
 
 28 6 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 * 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 3 11 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 6 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 * 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 1 9 3 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 dead 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 recov 
 
 'ered 
 
 • • • • 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 19 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 1 8 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 14 0 14 0 
 
 1 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 13 0 
 
 12 0 
 
 10 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 19 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 .6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 0 19 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 0 9 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6j 
 
 1 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6! 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 8 6 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 l 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 | | 
 
 6 0 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 69 9 
 
 09 9 69 9 69 9 65 9 65 9*69 9 
 
 70 3 76 376 3 74 3 71 3*70 3 
 
 45 18 9 
 
 ft 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 *1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
Regular Expenditure —Fourth Quarter , 
 
 xm 
 
 t~v 1832. T 
 Dec. January. 
 
 ---- A -- 
 
 “\ 
 
 February. 
 
 _ 
 
 
 March. 
 
 31. 
 
 s. d. 
 4 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 7 . 
 
 s. d. 
 4 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14. 
 
 s. d. 
 4 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 21 . 
 
 s. d 
 
 28. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 4 0 dead 
 
 1 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 4. 
 
 5. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 14 0 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 G 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 G 
 1 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 51 G 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 51 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 11 . 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 C 
 
 18. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 25. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 G 
 
 3. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 6 
 
 10 . 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 C 
 
 1 G 1 6 
 
 6 0 
 6 0 
 
 12 0 
 
 6 0 
 6 0 
 
 12 0 
 
 G 0 
 6 0 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 6 0 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 G 0 
 3 G 
 
 15 6 15 6 15 G 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 51 6 
 
 7 0 
 
 51 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 47 6 47 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 45 6 45 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 49 0 49 0 49 0 
 
 17. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 G 
 
 1 6 
 
 6 0 
 G 0 
 3 G 
 
 24. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 G 
 
 1 G 
 
 6 0 
 6 0 
 3 6 
 
 15 G 15 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 Fourth 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Second 
 
 Half. 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 The whole 
 Year. 
 
 £. s, d 
 
 £. s. d 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 0 1G 0 
 
 2 9 0 
 
 3 2 0 
 
 113 0 
 
 5 11 0 
 
 1 1 Q ft 
 
 0 19 6 
 
 1 19 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 lit) V 
 
 3 9 0 
 
 1 15 G 
 
 4 8 0 
 
 6 5 0 
 
 10 13 0 
 
 3 18 0 
 
 7 16 0 
 
 8 2 0 
 
 15 18 0 
 
 4 10 0 
 
 9 14 0 
 
 7 12 0 
 
 17 6 0 
 
 0 17 G 
 
 0 17 G 
 
 
 0 17 6 
 
 9 5 6 
 
 -- 
 
 .8 7 6 
 
 15 14 0 
 
 34 I G 
 
 1 12 6 
 1 6 0 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 3 5 0 3 7 6 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 2 14 0 
 
 6 1 G 
 
 5 6 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 2 12 0 
 1 19 0 
 
 7 0 4 11 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 3 5 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 7 0 | 7 0 4 11 0 
 
 49 0 49 0 
 C 
 
 31 17 0 
 
 4 110 
 1 6 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 5 4 0 
 3 18 0 
 
 9 2 0 
 
 5 4 0 
 
 6 10 0 
 
 11 14 0 
 
 9 2 0 
 
 64 7 6 
 
 4 14 6 
 1 7 0 
 
 6 1 6 
 
 5 8 0 
 1 1 0 
 
 6 9 0 
 
 5 8 0 
 
 6 15 0 
 
 12 3 0 
 
 9 9 0 
 
 62 3 0 
 
 6 12 6 
 5 G 0 
 
 11 18 6 
 
 9 5 6 
 2 13 0 
 
 11 18 6 
 
 10 12 0 
 4 19 0 
 
 15 11 0 
 
 10 12 0 
 13 5 0 
 
 23 17 0 
 
 18 11 0 
 
 126 10 6 
 
XIV 
 
 Regular Expenditure —-Third Quarter, continued 
 
 1831. 
 
 October. 
 
 
 November. 
 -a. 
 
 r- 
 
 December. 
 
 Description and Name. 
 
 Brought forward 
 
 Single Men. 
 John Read ........ 
 
 Children. 
 
 Bonham’s. 
 
 Whorley’s. 
 
 Boys. 
 
 Ludgate’s. 
 
 Carvil’s. 
 
 Sick List. 
 
 Dan. Gubbins- 
 
 Samuel Lawrence 
 William Howes.. 
 Esther Watson .. 
 Walter Wright... 
 Mark Whitmill .. 
 
 Nurses. 
 
 John Jeffs. 
 
 Mary Hiorns ... 
 Widow Maud... 
 Martha Beesley. 
 
 Casual Relief. 
 Thomas Luckett. 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 Carried forward 
 
 Amounts carried 
 forward. 
 
 \ 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 
 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 26. 
 
 o 
 
 o. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 Third 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 s. d 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 A\ 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 50 6 
 
 50 6 
 
 50 G 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 49 6 
 
 50 6 
 
 50 G 
 
 50 6 
 
 50 6 
 
 32 10 G 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 G 
 
 5 G 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 G 
 
 5 G 
 
 5 G 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 3 11 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 G 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 G 
 
 9 6 
 
 6 3 G 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 l 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 1 9 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 14 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 0 17 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 G 
 
 7 6 
 
 7 6 
 
 4 16 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 73 0 
 
 73 0 
 
 73 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 73 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 G 
 
 73 G 73 6 
 
 47 8 6 
 
Regular Expenditure —Fourth Quarter , continued , 
 
 xv 
 
 1832 
 
 Dec. “* January. February. March. 
 
 31. 
 
 7. 
 
 14. 
 
 21. 
 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 25. 
 
 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 Fourth 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Second 
 
 Half. 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 The whole 
 Year. 
 
 , 
 
 s. d. 
 
 51 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 51 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 51 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 51 G 
 
 s. d 
 
 47 6 
 
 S. 6?. 
 
 47 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 45 G 
 
 A’, 
 
 45 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 49 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 49 0 
 
 s. d 
 
 49 0 
 
 s. 
 
 49 0 
 
 s. d. 
 
 49 0 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 31 17 0 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 64 7 6 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 62 3 0 
 
 £. s. d. 
 126 10 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 G 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 3 5 0 
 
 3 7 6 
 
 6 12 6 
 
 L 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 G 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 G 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 3 11 6 
 
 5 4 0 
 
 7 3 0 
 
 5 8 0 
 
 7 8 6 
 
 10 12 0 
 
 14 11 G 
 
 9 C 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 G 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 G 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 G 
 
 9 6 
 
 6 3 6 
 
 12 7 0 
 
 12 16 G 
 
 25 3 G 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 1 6 0 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 1 7 0 
 
 1 13 9 
 
 2 13 0 
 
 3 6 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 1 9 3 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 3 0 9 
 
 5 19 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 4 1 0 
 
 4 4 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 5 19 0 
 
 8 6 0 
 
 3 3 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 .... 
 
 ! 
 
 L.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 L... 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 recov 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 G 
 
 ered 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 4 0 
 
 1 17 0 
 
 2 5 6 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 1 18 0 
 
 4 2 0 
 
 3 3 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 5 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 3 G 
 
 5 0 
 
 dead 
 
 3 G 
 
 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 3 G 
 
 5 0 
 
 3 G 
 
 5 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 86 
 
 7 6 
 
 7 G 
 
 7 G 
 
 7 6 
 
 7 6 
 
 7 G 
 
 14 6 
 
 14 G 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 G 
 
 5 16 G 
 
 10 13 0 
 
 11 17 0 
 
 22 10 0 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 6 
 
 1 3 0 
 
 0 113 
 
 2 0 6 
 
 1 3 0 
 
 2 3 9 
 
 0 7 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r • * * 
 
 1 3 
 
 I 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 0 16 3 
 
 0 7 G 
 
 1 12 6 
 
 0 7 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 3 
 
 2 9 
 
 2 9 
 
 2 9 
 
 2 9 
 
 2 9 
 
 1 3 9 
 
 2 0 0 
 
 3 14 9 
 
 5 14 9 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 """1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 '5 6 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 G 
 
 70 G 
 
 70 6 
 
 68 6 
 
 75 6 
 
 80 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 48 2 6 
 
 S 
 
 95 11 0 96 19 6 
 
 1 
 
 192 10 6 
 
XVI 
 
 Regular Expenditure —Third Quarter, continued 
 
 1831. October. November. December. 
 
 Description and Name. 
 
 1. 
 
 8. 
 
 15. 
 
 22. 
 
 29. 
 
 5. 
 
 12. 
 
 19. 
 
 26. 
 
 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 Third 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 1 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s . d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 Amounts brought 
 
 1.. 
 
 73 0 
 
 73 0 
 
 73 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 
 
 72 0 73 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 73 6 
 
 73 6 
 
 47 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 forward. 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Casual Relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 0 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 12 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 
 12 0 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Head Money. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T Tuidp-ate . .. 
 
 
 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 W, Tomalin ....... 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 J. Pollard 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 0 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 80 
 
 10 010 0 
 
 10 0 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 t-H 
 
 ~©~ 
 
 o 
 
 10 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Employment. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .T, Marlow, ... . , , , 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 .T. Tiirnpr. 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 .T. Pri cp .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 0 
 
 17 
 
 0 
 
 J. Riishjjnn. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 S 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 0 
 
 T. Tiiidgate. 
 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 
 0 
 
 Thomas Allpn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 0 
 
 John Cox .. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 0 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 Charles Mott. 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fiporp'p Rutlin. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 1 
 
 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 15 0 23 0 
 
 31 0 33 0 36 0 
 
 37 0 
 
 38 0 
 
 37 0 44 0 
 
 1 1 
 
 44 0 ( 44 0 
 
 20 
 
 0 
 
 0 i 
 
 
 
 82 0 82 0 
 
 96 0 j 107 o 
 
 1 | 
 
 115 0117 0120 0 
 
 123 0 
 
 121 0 133 6 128 oj 127 o|l27 G 
 
 74 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 I 
 
Regular Expenditure —Second Quarter, continued , 
 
 IX 
 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 June. July. August. September. 
 
 ) 
 
 25. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 6. 
 
 13. 
 
 20. 
 
 27. 
 
 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 Second 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 t 
 
 s. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 5. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 46 6 
 
 46 6 49 6 
 
 i 
 
 s. d. 
 
 49 6 
 
 s. d 
 
 50 6 
 
 s. d 
 
 50 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 50 6 
 
 s. s. d. 
 
 \ 
 
 50 6 50 6 
 
 i 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 33 17 0 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 62 3 0 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 15 0 
 
 3 7 6 
 
 jl; 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 o 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 6 
 
 2 16 0 
 
 3 17 0 
 
 5 8 0! 
 
 7 8 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 96 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 9 6 
 
 6 13 0 
 
 12 16 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 0 14 0 
 
 0 17 6 
 
 1 7 0 
 
 1 13 9 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 2 3 
 
 1 11 6 
 
 3 0 9 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 4 1 0 
 
 4 4 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 2 0 
 
 2 16 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 70 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 18 0 
 
 11 17 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 o 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 1 0 
 
 0 14 0 
 
 0 11 3 
 
 2 0 6 
 
 1 3 0 
 
 0 11 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 3 9 
 
 2 6 3 
 
 3 14 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 5 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 !".* 
 
 
 
 
 0 5 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 70 3 70 3 
 
 A i 
 
 |70 3,70 3 
 
 70 3 
 
 71 671 6 
 
 74 6^4 6 75 6^5 6 
 
 75 6 
 
 75 6|75 6 
 
 51 0 9 
 
 96 19 6 
 
 b 
 
X 
 
 Regular Expenditure —First Quarter , continued, 
 
 1831. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 April. 
 
 r 
 
 May. 
 
 a 
 
 
 June. 
 
 ■A _ 
 
 Description and Name. 
 
 Amounts brought \ 
 forward ...... j j 
 
 Casual Relief. 
 Brought forward. 
 
 Robert Turner 
 
 Roddis’s Wife .... 
 
 Head Money. 
 
 T. Ludgate. 
 
 W. Tomalin f ... 
 
 .J. Pollard. 
 
 W. Hughes. 
 
 Employment. 
 
 J. Marlow. 
 
 J. Turner. 
 
 J. Price . 
 
 J. Bush, jun. ... 
 T. Ludgate. 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 26. j 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 7. 
 
 14. 
 
 21. 
 
 28. 
 
 4. 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 First 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 s. d. s. d. 
 
 69 9 69 9 
 
 | 
 
 s. d. s. rf.j s. d. s. d. 
 
 69 9 69 9 65 9 65 9 
 
 1 1 i 
 
 s. d 
 
 69 9 
 
 s. d. 
 
 70 3 
 
 s. d. s. d. 
 
 76 3 76 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 74 3 
 
 s. d 
 
 71 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 70 3 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 45 18 9 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 1 8 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 70 
 
 19 0 13 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 2 18 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 
 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 
 
 
 [ 
 
 2 0 2 0 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 8 0 8 0 
 
 j i 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 0 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 ,0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 11 0 
 
 3 18 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 
 5 4 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 0 34 0 34 0 
 
 34 0 34 0 
 
 1 
 
 34 0 
 
 34 0 34 0 34 0 
 
 34 0 
 
 34 0 34 0 34 0 
 
 22 2 0 
 
 111 9 111 9 111 9 117 9 107 9 
 
 1 1 1 I 
 
 107 9 
 
 101 9 112 3 125 3 
 
 125 3 
 
 1 
 
 127 3 118 3 110 3 
 
 74 18 9 
 
Regular Expenditure —Second Quarter , continued , 
 
 xi 
 
 June. 
 
 July. 
 
 A 
 
 
 August. 
 
 -, 
 
 September. 
 
 r 
 
 25. 
 
 2. 
 
 9. 
 
 16. 
 
 23. 
 
 30. 
 
 6. 
 
 13. 
 
 20. 
 
 27. 
 
 3. 
 
 10. 
 
 17. 
 
 24. 
 
 Second 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 s. rf.J s. d. 
 
 70 3 70 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 70 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 70 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 70 3 
 
 s. d. 
 
 71 6 
 
 s. d) s. d. s. d s. d. 
 
 r | i 
 
 71 6 74 6 74 6 75 6 
 
 i 1 i 
 
 s. d. 
 
 75 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 75 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 75 6 
 
 s. d. 
 
 75 6 
 
 £• s. d. 
 
 51 0 9 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 96 19 6 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 5 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 1 8 0 
 
 2 16 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 16 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 2 0 
 
 
 
 5 0 
 
 .... 
 
 
 
 
 2 1 0 
 
 4 19 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 7 0 
 
 0 6 0 
 
 0 8 0 
 
 0 8 0 
 
 3 2 10 
 
 4 18 0 
 
 4 4 0 
 
 3 0 0 
 
 5 12 0 
 
 8 19 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 
 
 
 2 0 
 
 • • • • 
 
 1 6 
 
 .... 
 
 5 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 0 
 
 13 0 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 1 6 
 
 .... 
 
 5 4 
 
 4 11 10 
 
 26 13 10 
 
 110 3 
 
 1 
 
 89 3 85 3 
 
 I 
 
 85 3 85 3 
 • 1 
 j 
 
 84 6 
 
 73 6 74 6 
 
 74 6 
 
 82 6 
 
 75 6 
 
 77 0 75 6 so io 
 
 57 13 7 
 
 132 12 4 
 
 \ 
 
Xll 
 
 Regular Expenditure— Third Quarter. 
 
 1831. 
 
 October. 
 
 _A_ 
 
 
 November. 
 
 A 
 
 "s r 
 
 December. 
 
 A 
 
 Description and Name. 1. 
 
 Widows. 
 
 Douglas. 
 
 Maud. 
 
 Bloxham. 
 
 Widows 
 with Children. 
 
 French 
 Allen .. 
 Barton 
 
 Single Women. 
 
 Kate Birt. 
 
 Hannah Dodd ... 
 
 Widowers. 
 Henry Wimbush.. 
 Thomas Newberry 
 
 Widowers 
 with Children. 
 
 William Brown ... 
 Charles Sewell.... 
 
 Old Married Men. 
 Daniel Stanton ... 
 John Cadd . 
 
 Old Married Men 
 with Children. 
 
 George Jeffs. 
 
 Amounts carried 
 forward ..., 
 
 s. d. 
 
 3 0 
 dead 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 } 
 
 50 6 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 o 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 50 6 
 
 15. 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 4 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 50 6 
 
 22 . 
 
 s. d 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 19 6 
 
 29. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 G 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 s. <7. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 12 . 
 
 s. d 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 G 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 19. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 26. 
 
 s. d. 
 2 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 3 G 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 49 6 49 6 49 G 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 49 G 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 49 6 50 6 
 
 10 . 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 17. 
 
 1 6 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 14 0 
 
 2 6 2 6 
 2 0 2 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 3 6 
 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 o; 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 24. 
 
 s. d. 
 3 0 
 
 1 6 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 0 
 8 0 
 
 14 0 
 
 2 6 
 2 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 3 6 
 1 0 
 
 4 6 
 
 4 0 
 3 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 7 0 
 
 50 6 50 6 50 6 
 
 Third 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 1 13 0 
 
 0 19 6 
 
 2 12 6 
 
 3 18 0 
 5 4 0 
 
 9 2 0 
 
 1 12 6 
 1 6 0 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 2 5 6 
 0 13 0 
 
 2 18 6 
 
 2 12 0 
 1 19 0 
 
 4 11 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 3 5 0 
 
 5 17 0 
 
 4 110 
 
 32 10 6 
 
IIegular Expenditure— Fourth Quarter, continued. 
 
 XVII 
 
 | Dec. January. 
 
 A 
 
 r ~—■— - 
 
 
 February. 
 _- 1 - 
 
 March. 
 
 . 
 
 31. 
 
 7. 
 
 s. d. I s. d. 
 75 6 74 6 
 
 .. 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 2 0 
 
 10 0 10 0 10 0 
 
 14. 
 
 s. d 
 74 6 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 2 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 5 0 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 3 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 5 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 5 0 
 4 0 
 
 21 . 
 
 s. d. 
 
 28. 
 
 s. d 
 
 74 G70 G 
 
 s. d 
 70 6 
 
 11 . 
 
 s. J. 
 
 18. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 68 6 75 G 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 5 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 5 0 
 9 0 
 5 0 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 2 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 
 10 10 
 10 10 
 
 9 0 9 0 
 
 25. 
 
 5. rf. 
 
 80 G 
 
 3. 
 
 s. (7 
 74 G 
 
 G 0 
 5 0 
 
 11 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 G 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 3 0 
 
 2 0 2 0 
 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 2 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 4 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 
 9 0 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 
 8 0 
 G 0 
 2 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 3 6 
 
 10 . 
 
 17. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 74 674 6 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 
 
 6 0 6 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 G 0 
 4 0 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 3 6 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 3 6 
 
 24. 
 
 s. d. 
 74 6 
 
 6 0 
 
 10 0 
 
 16 0 
 
 3 0 
 2 0 
 2 0 
 1 0 
 1 0 
 
 Fourth 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Second 
 
 Half. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 48 2 6 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 95 11 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 0 15 0 
 
 0 10 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 1 15 0 
 
 1 2 0 
 
 2 15 0 
 
 4 7 0 
 
 9 0 
 
 8 0 
 6 0 
 
 8 0 
 9 0 
 
 4 0 
 7 0 
 3 6 
 
 1 19 0 
 1 6 0 
 1 6 0 
 0 13 0 
 0 16 0 
 
 6 0 0 
 
 5 4 0 
 3 18 0 
 
 1 5 0 
 
 5 4 0 
 5 17 0 
 1 0 0 
 
 2 12 0 
 2 9 0 
 0 14 0 
 
 3 12 0 
 2 8 0 
 2 8 0 
 1 4 0 
 1 8 0 
 
 110 0 
 
 9 4 0 
 
 7 4 0 
 2 2 0 
 
 8 16 0 
 11 14 0 
 
 2 15 0 
 
 3 5 0 
 2 9 0 
 0 14 0 
 
 First 
 
 Half. 
 
 The whole 
 Year. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 96 19 6 192 10 G 
 
 0 15 0 
 1 8 0 
 2 16 0 
 
 4 19 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 1 0 0 
 1 0 0 
 0 10 0 
 
 4 0 0 
 
 4 18 0 
 
 4 4 0 
 3 0 0 
 
 5 12 0 
 8 19 10 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 0 15 0 
 1 8 0 
 4 G 0 
 1 15 0 
 1 2 0 
 
 9 6 0 
 
 5 2 0 
 3 8 0 
 3 8 0 
 1 14 0 
 1 8 0 
 
 15 0 0 
 
 14 2 0 
 11 8 0 
 5 2 0 
 14 8 0 
 20 13 10 
 
 2 15 0 
 
 3 5 0 
 2 9 0 
 0 14 0 
 
 44 0 43 0 44 0 
 
 44 0 37 0 37 0 
 
 42 0 42 0 
 
 42 0 
 
 47 6 
 
 49 6 45 6 
 
 45 6 
 
 28 3 0 
 
 48 3 0 
 
 26 13 10 
 
 74 16 10 
 
 129 6 127 6 128 C 
 
 1276 11661166 
 
 1216 131 6 112 6 137 0 139 0 135 0 
 
 I I I 
 
 145 0 
 
 85 6 0 
 
 159 1 0 132 12 4 
 
 291 13 4 
 
 d 
 
XV111 
 
 Irregular Expenditure. 
 
 Date. 
 
 March 27 
 28 
 30 
 
 April 1 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 24 
 May 1 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 25 
 
 J une 3 
 9 
 14 
 19 
 24 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE of the Parish of 
 
 from 25th March, 1831, 
 
 Description. 
 
 Two Letters. 
 
 A Blanket, Mary Walker. 
 
 John Thorpe to Mr. Slow, Birmingham. 
 
 Henry Pargeter’s Wife. 
 
 Ditto.Ditto. 
 
 Allowing levy 2s., and attendance of assessor on\ 
 day of appeal, 35. / 
 
 Repairing Engine. 
 
 William Parsons. 
 
 Hopkins, including journey. 
 
 Conveying Mary Gibbs to Infirmary, &c. 
 Clerk’s fee for Lunatic and Jury Lists .. 
 Stationery, as per bill. 
 
 Journey to Magistrate’s Meeting with Edward \ 
 Kirton ) 
 
 Three Letters. 
 
 John Gardner, for Shoes. 
 
 Parish Clerk’s Salary. 
 
 Constable’s Bill. 
 
 Assistant Overseer. 
 
 His Salary for one quarter. 
 
 Surgeon’s Salary for one quarter 
 
 Loss on Poor’s Coal... 
 
 Rent of Coal Barn. 
 
 Quarterage and Precepts. 
 
 Constable’s Bill. 
 
 Apprentices. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 8 14 9 
 
 Orders 
 
 and 
 
 Removals. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 1 7 0 
 
 8 14 9 
 
 1 7 0 
 
 Apparel. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 0 5 6 
 
 0 14 0 
 
 0 19 6 
 
Irregular Expenditure. 
 
 xix 
 
 in the County of 
 
 to 25th March, 1832. 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
 Surgeon 
 
 and 
 
 Medical 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 Funerals. 
 
 H 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 0 14 6 
 
 5 0 0 
 
 5 14 6 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 Rents. 
 
 County 
 
 Rate. 
 
 cE* s . d * 
 
 3 17 6 
 
 3 17 6 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 1 10 0 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 4 18 8 
 
 Constable. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 Assistant 
 
 Overseer. 
 
 Incidental 
 
 Expenses. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 0 1 6 
 
 0 5 0 
 0 7 6 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 0 14 6 
 
 0 3 6 
 
 0 16 8 
 5 0 0 
 
 0 12 8 
 0 8 0 
 1 6 7 
 
 0 4 8 
 
 5 0 0 
 
 3 14 7 
 2 10 0 
 
 0 12 6 
 
 4 18 8 2 7 0 
 
 602 14 10 6 
 
 Total. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 0 1 6 
 
 0 5 6 
 
 8 14 9 
 
 0 14 6 
 
 3 17 6 
 
 0 5 0 
 
 0 7 6 
 1 10 0 
 
 2 7 0 
 0 12 8 
 0 8 0 
 
 1 6 7 
 
 0 3 6 
 
 0 4 8 
 0 14 0 
 5 0 0 
 0 14 6 
 0 16 S 
 5 0 0 
 
 5 0 0 
 
 3 14 7 
 
 2 10 0 
 
 4 18 8 
 0 12 6 
 
 49 19 7 
 
XX 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 ANNUAL RECEIPTS of the Parish of 
 from 25th March, 1831, 
 
 Date. 
 
 
 March 26 
 
 Bal 
 
 April 7 
 
 By 
 
 18 
 
 By 
 
 19 
 
 By 
 
 May 1 
 
 By 
 
 4 
 
 By 
 
 • • 
 
 By 
 
 10 
 
 By 
 
 17 
 
 By 
 
 • • 
 
 By 
 

 Receipts. 
 
 xxi 
 
 in the County of 
 
 o the 25th March, 1832. 
 
 Balance 
 
 Earnings 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Surplus 
 
 Other 
 
 Monies. 
 
 
 
 
 of 
 
 last year. 
 
 of 
 
 Paupers. 
 
 Rents. 
 
 Bastards. 
 
 Levy. 
 
 
 of 
 
 Labour Rate. 
 
 Total. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 £• s. d. 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 £• s. 
 
 d. 
 
 £. s. 
 
 d. 
 
 St cl* 
 
 • St dt 
 
 £. 
 
 s . 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 74 18 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 . 
 
 jj 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 
 0 13 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 16 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 0 13 0 
 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 13 
 
 0 
 
 i' 
 
 
 1 3 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 14 6 
 
 1 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 i 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 27 18 6 
 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 JP 
 
 
 
 
 74 18 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 74 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 15 6 
 
 0 13 6 
 
 1 16 0 
 
 18 2 
 
 0 
 
 149 17 
 
 6 
 
 27 18 6 
 
 1 14 6 
 
 224 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
XXII 
 
 Expenditure and Receipts. 
 
 ANNUAL ACCOUNT of EXPENDITURE and RECEIPTS 
 
 Commencing 25th March, 1831, 
 
 Description of Items. 
 
 Widows. 
 
 Widows with Children. 
 
 Single Women.. 
 
 Widowers... 
 
 Widowers with Children .... 
 
 Old Married Men. 
 
 Old Married Men with Children 
 
 Single Men. 
 
 Children.... 
 
 Boys.. 
 
 Sick List.. 
 
 Nurses.. 
 
 Casual Relief. 
 
 Head Money.. 
 
 Employment. 
 
 Pauper Lunatics. 
 
 First 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Second 
 
 Quarter. 
 
 Prosecuting and defending) 
 Appeals J 
 
 Other Law Expenses.,.. 
 
 Irish, 
 
 Passing Scotch, 
 other Poor 
 
 and | 
 
 Emigrants. 
 
 Putting out Apprentices. 
 
 Orders and Removals. 
 
 Apparel. 
 
 Surgeon and Medical Expenses 
 
 Funerals. 
 
 Rents. 
 
 County Rate. 
 
 Constable. 
 
 Assistant Overseer. 
 
 Incidental Expenses. 
 
 £. s. 
 
 3 11 
 5 18 
 2 IS 
 2 18 
 2 12 
 
 5 17 
 
 4 11 
 1 12 
 
 6 3 
 
 1 9 
 6 19 
 1 8 
 
 2 18 
 4 0 
 
 22 2 
 
 d. 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 74 18 9 
 
 £. s. 
 
 2 14 
 9 16 
 
 3 3 
 3 3 
 
 3 17 
 6 6 
 
 4 18 
 
 1 15 
 6 13 
 1 11 
 4 18 
 
 2 6 
 2 1 
 
 d 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 First Third 
 Half. | Quarter. 
 
 4 11 10 
 
 57 13 7 
 74 18 9 
 
 £. 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 26 
 
 s. 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 0 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 0 
 
 d. £. s. 
 0 2 12 
 0 9 2 
 6 2 18 
 6 2 18 
 0 4 11 
 0 5 17 
 
 0 4 11 
 
 I 
 
 6 1 12 
 6 6 3 
 9 1 9 
 0 4 16 
 9 0 16 
 
 0 1 12 
 
 I 
 
 0 5 0 
 
 d. 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 F ourth 
 Quarter. 
 
 13 10 20 0 0 
 
 132 12 4 
 
 132 12 4 
 
 74 0 6 
 
 £. s. 
 
 1 15 
 9 5 
 
 2 18 
 2 18 
 
 4 11 
 
 5 17 
 
 4 11 
 1 12 
 
 6 3 
 1 9 
 
 5 16 
 
 1 3 
 
 2 15 
 
 6 0 
 28 3 
 
 d. 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Second 
 
 Half. 
 
 £. s. 
 
 4 8 
 18 7 
 
 5 17 
 5 17 
 9 2 
 
 11 14 
 9 2 
 
 3 5 
 
 12 7 
 2 18 
 
 10 13 
 2 0 
 
 4 7 
 
 11 0 
 48 3 
 
 The whole 
 Year. 
 
 £. 
 
 10 
 
 34 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 22 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 74 
 
 s. d. 
 
 13 0 
 1 6 
 
 18 6 
 18 6 
 11 0 
 17 0 
 11 0 
 12 6 
 3 6 
 19 3 
 10 0 
 
 14 9 
 6 0 
 0 0 
 
 16 10 
 
 85 0 6 
 
 74 0 6 
 
 159 1 0 
 
 159 1 0 
 132 12 4 
 
 291 13 4 
 
 291 13 4 
 
Expenditure and Receipts. 
 
 xxm 
 
 )r the Parish of 
 
 nd ending 25th March, 1832. 
 
 in the County of 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 Balance from last year..... 
 
 Earnings of Paupers. 
 
 Rents. 
 
 Bastards... 
 
 Six Levys, at £ each. 
 
 Surplus of Labour Rate... 
 
 Other Monies.. 
 
 Total. . £ 
 
 Deduct, 
 
 Amount expended as per x\ccount on other side. 
 
 Balance in hand. £ 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 We have examined these Accounts from time to time, and have found them perfectly 
 correct. 
 
 Edward Harris, ) . .. 
 
 r Auditors. 
 
 Charles Hensman, ‘ 
 
 7 April, 1832. 
 and George 
 
 Verified on the oath of Thomas Jones and William Walker, Overseers, 
 Thornton, Assistant Overseer, and allowed by us, 
 
 A. B. 
 
 C. D. 
 
 } 
 
 Magistrates. 
 
The advantage this system of book-keeping might receive if Com¬ 
 missioners were appointed every few years to investigate the mode of 
 arranging the accounts of Parochial Expenditure, would be very con¬ 
 siderable. They might follow the plan adopted for ascertaining the 
 state of Parochial Charities, by visiting our Towns, and then sum¬ 
 moning the Overseers of the surrounding Villages to produce their 
 accounts. Any defect would be immediately detected, and the uni¬ 
 formity in keeping them correctly preserved. 
 
 From the preceding Annual Account of the Expenditure and 
 Receipts, it will be very easy for the Overseers to make up the 
 Return to be made to Parliament, as we find it represented at 
 page xxvii in Appendix (C.) 
 
j 
 
 { 
 
 1 
 
 ( 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 t 
 
 I 
 
 
 ^ 12 
 
 3 533 
 
 £ £ 
 
 GTQ 
 
 5 $ 
 
 © 
 
 s 
 
 hj 
 
 O 
 
 Ct> 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 <s 
 
 © 
 
 
 «* 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 -4 
 
 
 «$> 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 cn 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
XXVI 
 
 (C.) 
 
 Mode of mailing Return annually in obedience to the 
 Order of the House of Commons. 
 
 HOUSE of COMMONS. 
 
 -- die Februarii, 1832. 
 
 ORDERED, 
 
 THAT the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor, of every 
 Parish, Township, or other Place, in England and Wales, do prepare— 
 An Account of the Items of the Total Amount of Money levied for 
 Poor Rates and County Rates, or received from any other source, in 
 the Year ending the 25th of March next, of this present year 1832, 
 in such Parish, Township, or Place maintaining its own Poor ;—and 
 also of the Items of the Total Amount of Money expended that same 
 Year, according to the Schedule on the other side :—and that such 
 Churchwardens and Overseers, or any two of them, do attend at the 
 next Meeting of the Magistrates for the Division, convened for the 
 purpose of receiving such Account, and then and there deliver in 
 such Account, and certify on Oath that it is correct, to the best of 
 their knowledge and belief, under Penalty of Pounds, as 
 
 fixed by the Act of William the Fourth, cap. 
 
 J. H. LEY , 
 
 Cl. Dom. Com. 
 
XXV11 
 
 POOR RATE RETURN for the Year commencing 25 March, 1831, and 
 
 ending 25 March, 1832. 
 
 County of 
 
 Hundred 1 
 or >- of 
 
 Wapentalce ) 
 
 Parish of 
 
 Township 
 
 or y of 
 
 Tytliing 
 
 }oJ 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 By Balance from last year. 
 
 By Earnings of Paupers. 
 
 By Rents...... 
 
 By Bastards. 
 
 By Six Levys, at £118 6s. 5 d. ! 
 each j 
 
 By Surplus of Labour Rate.... 
 
 By Other Monies. 
 
 Total.£ 
 
 Deduct, 
 
 Expended, as per account! 
 opposite j 
 
 Balance in hand... .£ 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 i 
 
 d. 
 
 48 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 709 
 
 19 
 
 0 
 
 17 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 32 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 854 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 S36 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 Thomas Jones, ) „ 
 
 >• Overseers. 
 
 William Walker, 1 
 
 Sworn before us, this 
 
 April, in the year 1832. 
 
 day of 
 
 } 
 
 Magistrates. 
 
 EXPENDITURE. 
 
 To Widows. 
 
 To Widows with Children.... 
 
 To Single Women. 
 
 To Widowers. 
 
 To Widowers with Children .. 
 
 To Old Married Men. 
 
 To Old Manned Men with! 
 Children j 
 
 To Single Men. 
 
 To Children. 
 
 To Boys. 
 
 To Sick List. 
 
 To Nurses. 
 
 To Casual Relief. 
 
 To Head Money. 
 
 To Employment. 
 
 To Pauper Lunatics. 
 
 To prosecuting and defend-) 
 ing Appeals j 
 
 To other Law Expenses. 
 
 To passing Scotch, Irish, and! 
 other Poor J 
 
 To Emigrants. 
 
 To putting out Apprentices... 
 
 To Orders and Removals. 
 
 To Apparel. 
 
 To Surgeon and Medical Ex- 1 
 penses J 
 
 To Funerals. 
 
 To Rents. 
 
 To County Rate. 
 
 To Constable. 
 
 To Assistant Overseer. 
 
 To Incidental Expenses. 
 
 T otal .£ 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 836 14 1 
 
e 
 
 in 
 
 Ph 
 
 H 
 
 w 
 
 Ph 
 
 P3 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 Ph 
 
 <4i 
 
 s 
 
 60 
 
 ss 
 
 O 
 
 § 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 § 
 
 o 
 
 *50 
 . S 
 &q ?>2 
 
 £ 
 
 fen &S 
 
XXIX 
 
 (D). 
 
 COMPARATIVE VIEW OF ALL THE COUNTIES OF ENGLAND. 
 
 (See Pages 33, 34, and 112.) 
 
 Expenditure per Head. 
 In 1803. In 1829. 
 
 £. s. d. £. s . d. 
 
 Bedford . 0 11 7 f.. 0 16 3 
 
 Berks. 0 15 0 .. 0 14 65 
 
 Bucks. 0 10 0*.. 0 17 If 
 
 Cambridge. 0 12 0 .. 0 13 If 
 
 Chester . 9 6 Ilf.. 0 5 Ilf 
 
 Cornwall. 0 5 9 f.. 0 6 5f 
 
 Cumberland ....0 4 Sf.. 0 5 2 
 
 Derby. 0 9 9..0 6 3$ 
 
 Devon. 0 8 5f.. 0 8 4f 
 
 Dorset. 0 11 3f.. 0 10 4f 
 
 Durham . 0 0 5f.. 0 6 3f 
 
 Essex. 0 15 7f.. 0 16 6 f 
 
 Gloucester . 0 8 8 f..O 7 7 
 
 Hereford. 0 10 Of.. 0 10 3f 
 
 Hertford. 0 11 4f..0 12 9f 
 
 Huntingdon .... 0 12 9 .. 0 15 7f 
 
 Kent . 0 13 5..0 14 2f 
 
 Lancaster . 0 4 5..0 4 / f 
 
 Leicester. 0 12 3f.. 0 10 10 
 
 Lincoln . 0 9 2f.. 0 10 9f 
 
 Middlesex . 0 8 6 f.. 0 9 Sf 
 
 Monmouth. 0 8 0..0 4 8 f 
 
 Norfolk . 0 12 5 .. 0 14 If 
 
 Northampton .... 0 14 4f.. 0 15 8 f 
 
 Northumberland.. 0 6 8 .. 0 6 6 
 
 Nottingham .... 0 6 3f.. 0 6 If 
 
 Oxford. 9 16 2f.. 9 16 34 
 
 Rutland . 0 19 0..9 9 64 
 
 Salop . 0 8 0..9 7 5 
 
 Somerset. 0 8 19f.. 0 7 8 
 
 Southampton .... 0 11 3f.. 0 12 3^ 
 
 Stafford . 0 7 0..0 5 9 
 
 Suffolk. 9 11 5f.. 9 16 44 
 
 Surrey .......... 0 10 0 .. 0 10 0 
 
 Sussex. 1 2 7f* 0 17 3f 
 
 Warwick. 011 3..0 8 5 
 
 Westmoreland ...0 6 7f..O 9 1 
 
 Wilts . 0 13 5 .. 0 14 6 
 
 Worcester . 0 10 2f.. 0 7 2f 
 
 York, E. 0 7 5f.. 0 11 6 f 
 
 Do. N. 0 5 5 .. 0 7 1 
 
 Do. W. 0 6 7J-. 0 5 4f 
 
 All England .... 0 9 2f.. 0 9 3f 
 
 Expenditure per Acre. 
 
 In 1748. In 1803. In 1829. 
 
 £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. £. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 f.. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 6 .. 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 2 f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 8 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 4 .. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 8 f.. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 71 
 
 • 4 • • 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 4 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 0 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5f. • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 0 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 10 f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2 f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 31 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 4f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Of * ■ 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 7 .. 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 3 .. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 8 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 2f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5f.. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 9 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 . • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 0 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 7i 
 
 • 4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2\. . 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 6i 
 o 4 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 4f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 10 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 7f - • 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 7f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 8i.. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 7f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2f.. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 72- 
 
 • L ' * 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 0 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 3f. • 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 3^« • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 0 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 10f.. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 2f.. 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 6f.. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 5f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 3f • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 If.. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 If 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2 .. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 1 .. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 Hf 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 111.. 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 8 •• 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 If 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2f.. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 If.. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 5f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5f • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 6f • • 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 3f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 iof.. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Of • • 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 lOf.. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 2f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2 •• 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 7f • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6f • * 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 8f • • 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 2f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 7f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 10f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 2f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 6f. • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 10f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 .. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 4 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 5 .. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 8f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 3f.. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 3f • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 3f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 7f • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 6 .. 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 If •• 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 6f • • 
 
 0 
 
 10 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Of-. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 10 .. 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 Of 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 • • 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 Of.. 
 
 0 
 
 4 
 
 lOf 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1 •• 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 7 -. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6f • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 lOf.. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 •• 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 of * * 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 3| 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 If-- 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 Of.. 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 5f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 1 .. 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 8f • • 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 2f 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 3 • • 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 3 • • 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 .• 
 
 0 
 
 2 
 
 4J-. 
 
 0 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 * At page 34 there is an error. The Expenditure for Sussex in 1803 should be 
 179,858/., and per head 1/. 25. 7%d. instead of 11. 2s. 5id .: which makes the difference 
 at the foot of that page to be 5s. 4d. 
 
XXX 
 
 
 (E.)* —ABSTRACT of the RETURNS sent to the 
 
 27.—County of 
 
 Name of 
 
 DISTRICT or PARISH. 
 
 Query 1. 
 
 Do any Labour¬ 
 ers in your district, 
 employed by the 
 Farmers, receive 
 either the whole or 
 any part of the 
 wages of their la¬ 
 bour out of the 
 Poor Rates ? 
 
 Q. 2. 
 
 Is it usual in 
 your district, for 
 Married Labour¬ 
 ers, having Chil¬ 
 dren, to receive 
 assistance from the 
 Parish Rate ? 
 
 Q. 3. 
 
 If so, does such 
 allowance begin 
 when they have 
 one Child, or 
 more ? 
 
 Q. 4. 
 
 Is it usual for the 
 Overseers of the 
 Poor to send round 
 to IheFarmers, La¬ 
 bourers who can¬ 
 not find work, to 
 be paid partly by 
 the Employer, and 
 partly out of the 
 Poor Rate ? 
 
 Bassetlaw Hundred. .. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Yes, but not on 
 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Newark Division. 
 
 Yes, part. 
 
 account of their 
 having Children. 
 
 Yes, during sick¬ 
 ness, and when out 
 of employ. 
 
 
 South Division. 
 
 This depends on 
 the number of the 
 family, and his 
 daily earnings. 
 
 No. 
 
 Not unless they 
 havefourChildren. 
 
 Southwell Division ... 
 
 Not usual. 
 
 X. es. 
 
 No. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Arundel Rape, Lower 
 Division 
 
 Chichester Rape, 
 Upper Division 
 Chichester Rape, 
 Lower Division 
 
 } 
 
 } 
 
 } 
 
 EastGrinsteadDivision 
 
 Hailsiiam District . 
 
 Hastings Rape. 
 
 Horsham . 
 
 Lewes Rape. 
 
 Lewes Borough, .... 
 Steyning. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 When more than 
 two Children. 
 
 Occasionally. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 When more than 
 two Children. 
 
 No. 
 
 Les. 
 
 When they have 
 three Children. 
 
 In some few in¬ 
 stances. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Generally when 
 they have three 
 Children. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Generally when 
 they have three 
 Children. 
 
 \ es. 
 
 \ es. 
 
 Generally when 
 they have three 
 Children. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Generally when 
 more than three 
 Children. 
 
 In one or two 
 parishes only. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Generally when 
 they have two 
 Children. 
 
 In some parishes. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 When they have 
 three Children. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 When they have 
 three Children. 
 
 33.—County of 
 
 No. 
 
 Occasionally. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 In one or two 
 
 By no means 
 eneral. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 * See P.S. page 3G. 
 
XXXI 
 
 COMMITTEE on LABOURERS’ WAGES, 1824. 
 
 NOTTINGHAM. 
 
 Q. 5. 
 
 Has the num¬ 
 ber of unem¬ 
 ployed Labour¬ 
 ers asking assist¬ 
 ance from the 
 Parish,increased 
 or diminished 
 within the last 
 few years ? 
 
 Diminished 
 during the last 
 year. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 Q. 6. 
 
 What is the 
 lowest rate of 
 daily wages you 
 have known paid 
 to an unmarried 
 Labourer, by his 
 Employer, dur¬ 
 ing the last year? 
 
 Eighteen-pence. 
 
 Fourteen-pence. 
 
 Nine-pence. 
 
 Sixteen-pence. 
 
 a 7. 
 
 Have Select 
 Vestries or As- 
 sistantOverseers 
 been established 
 in your neigh¬ 
 bourhood ? 
 
 a s. 
 
 If so, what 
 effects have they 
 produced ? 
 
 Q. 9. 
 
 What is the usual 
 rate of wages in 
 your District ? 
 
 Both. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Ten to twelve 
 shillings per week. 
 
 In a few pa¬ 
 rishes. 
 
 Doubtful. 
 
 Ten shillings per 
 week. 
 
 In a few pa¬ 
 rishes. 
 
 Doubtful. 
 
 Ten shillings per 
 week. 
 
 AssistantOver- 
 seers in a few 
 instances. 
 
 
 Ten shillings per 
 week. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 This Division 
 consists of ninety 
 parishes. 
 
 SUSSEX. 
 
 Increased in 
 some parishes, 
 and decreased in 
 others. 
 
 Sixpence. 
 
 Two Select 
 Vestries,and one 
 Assistant Over¬ 
 seer. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Nine and ten 
 shillings per week. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 Sixteen-pence. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Nine to ten shil¬ 
 lings per week. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 One shilling. 
 
 AssistantOver- 
 seers in some 
 few instances. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Nine shillings 
 per week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Eight-pence. 
 
 Both. 
 
 Rather bene¬ 
 ficial. 
 
 Eight to ten 
 shillings per week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Eight-pence. 
 
 No. 
 
 
 Eight shillings 
 per week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Nine-pence. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Nine to ten shil¬ 
 lings and sixpence 
 per week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 One shilling. 
 
 Generally in 
 large parishes. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Ten shillings per 
 week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Eight-pence. 
 
 Yes, both. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Ten shillings and 
 sixpence per week. 
 
 Increased. 
 
 Eight-pence. 
 
 Both. 
 
 Beneficial. 
 
 Ten shillings and 
 sixpence per week. 
 
 Diminished. 
 
 One shilling. 
 
 In few in¬ 
 stances. 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Nine and ten 
 shillings per week. 
 
 This Division 
 contains forty- 
 five parishes. 
 

 - 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 01 '• J - «»*’* CO»*T, CHANCERY LANE. 
 
 
 
 

 
 I