The Parish Administration of Shoreham, 1782-1894

THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OF SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 By JOY SAYNOR, M.A.(OXON.) SHOREHAM parish, 5,506 acres, extends some four miles from east to west over the chalk Mils of the North Downs and two miles north to south along the Darent valley. The landscape painter, Samuel Pahner, who rented Water House in the viUage from 1827 to 1835 found in the parish, Ms 'valley of vision'.1 For eight years, his 'Young Self' created from the countryside around Mm, impressiomstic landscapes of perpetual midsummer and eternal harvest. After he left the viUage, for Ms remaining forty years of hfe, he dwindled into the conventional Victorian painter. His inspiration was the externals of country hfe, how far these reflected the reahty requires examMation in some detail. During the period 1782 to 1894, Shoreham could not altogether escape the economic fluctuations which were experienced by Kent as a whole. However, the varied nature of its agriculture coupled with the village paper-maldng industry helped to cushion its inhabitants against the extremes of economic change. Population statistics for the nineteenth century for the parish prove very httle; the population did not decline, neither did it increase greatly. At the first census in 1801, the parish contained 828 persons; in 1901, the figure was 1,515.2 For the first half of the period, the valley was as isolated as it had been throughout all its Mstory; 'Having no Mgh road of any pubhc description, fit] is but httle frequented by traveUers, and the turnpike road beMg whoUy chalk and stones is by no means pleasant for traveMng', commented W. H. Ireland in 1830.3 The opening up of the vaUey with the construction of the London, Chatham and Dover hne to Bat and Ball, Sevenoaks, did not take place until the early 1860s.4 In the first half of the nineteenth century, the larger farms in the parish varied in size between one hundred and seventy-one acres (Timberden), and four hundred and fifty acres (Sepham).5 The cMef valley farms, stiU farmed at the present time, were, from north to south, Castle Farm, Preston, Filston and Sepham. Their acreages all, as might be expected, decreased as a result of the recession towards the end of the 1 K.T.P., Paintings and Drawings by Samuel Palmer in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (undated), and Shoreliam Parish Collection, extract from article cataloguing the Title Deeds of Water House, 1728 to 1900. 2 Victoria County History, Kent, iii, London, 1932, 368. a W. H. Ireland, History of the County of Kent, iv, London, 1830, 540. 1 C. P. Dendy-Marshall, History of the Southern Railway, ii, London, 1963, 338. 6 K.A.O. (1963), Tithe Map and Award, 1843, C.T.R., 335. 191 JOY SAYNOR century. Castle Farm feU in acreage from 350 acres in 1843 to 321 acres in 1875; Preston from 300 acres to 248; Filston rose from 378 acres in 1843 to 430 in 1851, only to predictably faU to 305 acres in 1875; finally Sepham, 450 in 1843 spectacularly feU to 230 by 1875.6 No evidence survives to show whether leases were long or short, but it is possible to trace a farmMg dynasty occupying Filston Farm for a century. In 1785, Samuel Love was leasMg the farm; he was succeeded by Ms two daughters who retained possession until the early 1870s. MeanwMle, Ms son, another Samuel, leased Castle Farm durMg the 1840s.? In contrast to these substantial holdings, WiUiam Round, a prominent vestryman (livMg in the fifteenth-century yeoman's house wMch survives as the finest bmldmg in the modern High Street), rented Ms home and nine fields on the opposite side of the street for £31 1.0s. in 1823.8 In 1843, the parish contained 2,600 acres of arable land, 1,199 acres of woodland, 820 acres of pasture or meadow, 150 acres of market gardens, orchards and frmt plantations and 30 acres of hop ground. The arable land produced 3,050 bushels of oats in 1843; 2,120 bushels of barley and 1,195 bushels of wheat.0 The vaUey farms were essentially arable farms in 1843; only a very small acreage was devoted to fruit and hops. They averaged about 100 acres of pasture and meadowland apiece. By 1894 frmt growmg in the parish was extended on the high, wooded ground M the north-west of the parish. A sale catalogue deposited with the arcMves of the Mildmay family states: 'Owing to the large returns . . . durMg recent years, a large acreage of woodland . . . has been grubbed and planted with fruit with satisfactory results; this is beMg continued at the present time by tenants at their own expense.'10 Shoreham paper-miU, adapted, from one of the six Domesday water-miUs M Otford Manor, to produce wMte paper by a British paper-maker Alexander RusseU by 1690, offered an alternative form of employment to farming for the viUage proletariat. The Wilmott family, mill-owners in the late eighteenth century and tMoughout the mne- 8 Mildmay Papers, Bate Book, To benefit the Union Workhouse at Sevenoaks, 1875. I am indebted to Hon. Mrs. Mildmay-White for permission to study the private papers of the Mildmay family in so far as they relate to the history of Shoreham between the years 1823 and 1900. 7 Public Record Office, Census Beport for the Lathe of Sutton at Hone, Hundred of Codsheath, Parish of Shoreham, 1841 (complete), H.O. 107, 485/6. 8 Mildmay Papers, op. cit., Marriage Settlement between Humphrey St. John Mildmay, Esq., and, Ann Eugania Bingham Baring, 1823. (The bride became the first wife of H. St. J. Mildmay, M.P., was a daughter of the Alexander Baring, of Baring Bros., who was created first Baron Ashburton in 1835.) 8 K.A.O., op. cit., Tithe Award, 1843. 10 Mildmay Papers, Sale Catalogue, 1894. 192 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OP SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 teenth century, could offer employment to< 58 workers M 1851, and to 70 at the end of the century.11 These numbers Mcluded the few sMUed papermakers and a Mgh proportion of unskilled women and girls. An examMation of parish administration from the 1780s to the end of the last century is hampered by the paucity of survivmg records. The churchwardens' and overseers' accounts are missMg, as are the workhouse visitors' report books; there are no workhouse committee mMutes, no accounts from the surveyors of the Mghways. With the exception of the parish registers, beginmng in 1558, only the Vestry Book (1782-1884), and the Churchwardens' Books (1826-1883) remam in the Parish Chest.12 Among the private papers of the Mildmay family is deposited a Rate Book, dated 29th October for the coUection of a single rate to benefit the Umon Workhouse at Sevenoaks. But, M compensation, the Vestry Book contains a very fuU record of the subjects with wMch it was concerned. There is only one gap in its cMonology, between the years 1822 and 1828. A 'Mem. April 7th. 1828' notes that 'The book having been mislaid from November 1822 to the present date, the acts of vestry for the Mtervening period may be found in the overseer's vestry order books.' The latter no longer exist. Vestry meetings were held between twice and ten times a year. GeneraUy, there were between five and seven meetings, only in 1828 did ten meetings occur. But M five other years there were nine meetings; in 1787, 1815, 1817, 1819 and 1838. The number of parisMoners who attended averaged a dozen; there was one occasion when only tMee members attended and the meeting was adjourned. TMs latter meetmg was in May 1838, and had been caUed to consider the best means of appropriating the momes due from the sale of the workhouse. The incumbent was mentioned very httle M the earher entries. In February 1847, the entry giving the text of the 'Notice of meetmg to consent to the sale of the workhouse' was signed first by 'Mr. Falcon, . . . mimster', foUowed by the churchwardens and overseers. He was, however, the curate; the incumbent beMg the Rev. Edward Repton, M.A. Mr. Falcon was also the chairman of the meeting, held a few days later on 20th February, 1847, to resolve on the sale of the former workhouse premises. In the years 1819,1820 and 1821, the vestry book records one churchwarden appoMted by the vicar and one by the parisMoners. Thomas Borrett, of New Place, was prominent among the vestrymen in the 1780s. He served as churchwarden in 1782, signing the minute agreeMg to the hirMg of a house for the use of 'the poor of tMs parish'. On 21st April, 1783, he was named as one of the two chosen 11 Public Record Office, Census Beport for the lathe of Sutton at Hone, hundred of Codsheath, parish of Shoreham, the night of March 30th, 1851. H.O. 107, 1613. 12 Parish papers, Shoreham Vestry Minute Book, 1782 to 1873. 193 17 JOY SAYNOR overseers for the year ensuMg, but Ms name and that of Ms feUow overseer as weU as the names of the two churchwardens were crossed out and four other names substituted headed with the words 'Agreed to by us'. TMs seems to indicate a disputed election. The Borrett family had acquired Preston, the largest viUage estate and earher held by the semor branch of the PoUiiUs, in 1712. Between that date and Ms death M 1739, J0M1 Borrett, from Kirkby Lonsdale, Westmorland, Protonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, had acquired further property M the parish m the vaUey and had moved Ms family to a newly bmlt 'Elegant paUadian viUa', named New Place on the south of the viUage. Thomas Borrett was John Borrett's great nephew and had married Ms cousm Martha, John Borrett's grand-daughter.13 He was only to enjoy the estate for another tMrteen years; on 13th February, 1796, an indenture for the sale of the estate was drawn up, the result of the pressMg demands of no less than tMrty-two creditors.14 He was foUowed at New Place by Sir Walter Stirling, who, in 1823, was replaced by the first member of the Mildmay family, HumpMey St. John Mildmay, wMch was to remain in Shoreham in the rebMlt and renamed Shoreham Place until 1950.15 The other prominent vestrymen M the 1780s were cMefly farmers, especiaUy those farmers renting the larger farms, such as WiUiam Austin of Preston; the latter bmlding having now declined into a farmhouse, as it remains today. But the smaU farmer, WiMam Round was also represented, as was the paper-miU owner, Thomas Wihnott, who frequently appeared. In 1841, a salaried 'parish clerk' (vestry clerk?), was appointed. He was not agaM referred to until two years later. A minute of 17th April, 1843, noted Tt was deemed advisable to make a minute of the agreement entered Mto between the parisMoners and Thomas Medhurst at a vestry held m the year 1841 upon Ms appointment as parish clerk, viz. that he should receive the salary of £12 a year for keeping clean the church, attendMg to the fires, cleaning the stove and pipe, wasMng the surplices and toMng the beU for all vestries, services.' In 1847, it appeared that Thomas Medhurst was faihng to perform Ms duties adequately. On 20th February, Tt was requested that the churchwardens do admonish the clerk and order that in future the church be kept cleaner than it has been from some time back and that he is to attend to the matter agreed to by the minister and by the vestry in 1843.' 13 E. Hasted, History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, folio edition, Canterbury, 1778, i, 317. " K.A.O., Bargain and Sale, 1796, U. 36, T. 446. 15 Mildmay Papers, op. cit., Marriage settlement, 1823. 194 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OP SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 It seems that by 1828, if not earher, the parish had decided to adopt the Sturgess-Bourne Act and constitute their representatives into a select vestry. An entry of 15th May of that year recorded that 'At a vestry holden . . . after regular notice having been given, it was unanimously resolved to conduct the business of the parish of Shoreham by the continuance of a select vestry, and the foUowMg persons were nommated as members thereof.' Eighteen names follow. The wordMg appears somewhat vague, but it would seem to indicate that the select vestry was to commence at that date, contimung from then, rather than it had come into being some years previously, and was merely being confirmed. If it is accepted that May 1828 marks the commencement of the select vestry, the foUowing year, the vestry met ten times durMg the year, a record number of times. TMs may merely have been coMcidental, for the foUowMg year the number of meetings were the fairly usual seven. But the needs of the poor had not necessitated so many meetings: a poor rate (of tMee sMMngs in April and tMee sMMngs in October), was levied at only two of the ten meetings m that year. Perhaps the newer form of organization led temporarily to greater zeal. The general pohcy of the vestry tMoughout, so far as it can be judged from the vestry book, would seem to show responsible supervision over parocMal affairs, the regular appomtment of officers and a full recording of the minutes, especiaUy in the case of agreements deahng with workhouse premises, the appoMtment of the parish doctor and the later paid officials. As was to be expected M a rural parish at tMs date, the subject of poor rehef in aU its aspects took precedence in the minutes over other parocMal busMess. Local extraparocMal charity was small scale by comparison; the fifteenth-century almshouses were maMtained, the eighteenth-century charity school was faihng—Thomas Borrett had ceased to pay the schoolmaster's salary, and there were a number of smaU doles to the poor. The main burden of rehef feU upon the parish. Perhaps, it was sigmficant that the vestry book commenced in December 1782, the same year as Gilbert's Act was entered on the Statute Book; a measure recognized as introducing a new spirit of humamtariamsm into the care of the poor.16 The Shoreham vestry conscientiously provided housMg, medical attention and general care of the poor witMn the parish hmits. Settlement has only one mention; a reference to the comphcated dispute with Chelsfield parish concermng 'The boy that had Ms leg broke', the legal aspects of wMch are considered in Kentish Sources, IV The Poor (1964), 140-2." In April 10 22 Geo. Ill, c. 83, 1781-2. 17 E. MeUing, Kentish Sources, IV, The Poor, Maidstone, 1964, 123. 195 JOY SAYNOR 1791, the parish agreed to rehnburse the boy's employer for the expenses he had incurred. Shoreham's vestry book begms with the Mring of a house for the poor and with the order by the overseer 'That from henceforth no person shall be aUowed any provision outfside] of the said house exceeding the sum of one sMUMg per week or on some extraordMary occasion as of infectious disorder or such Mte.'18 Less than a week later, a second meeting drew up the rules for the admmistration of the workhouse under the master, Charles Broomfield, from whom the bmldMg was Mred. Broomfield was Mmself a tenant of Mr. Wilmott, the paper-mill owner, 'That the said parish do allow Charles Broomfield two shillings and sixpence per head per week for six months in. the year and two shillings and threepence per head for the other six months in the year. That the said parish of Shoreham to pay to the said Charles Broomfield ten guineas per year for the use of the different houses he now rents under Mr. Wilmott. That the said parish of Shoreham shall provide clothing and bedding for all the poor they send to the care of the said Charles Broomfield. That the said Charles Broomfield shall allow and find the poor under his care good and sufficient meat, drink, washing and mending in lodging and — [illegible] and that the said poor shall be allowed two pence out of every shilling they shall earn by their labour, and the parish two pence more out of every such shilling earned and the said Charles Broomfield shall have the full residue of the money earned by the poor under his care. That there shall be a book kept by the said Charles Broomfield specifying the proper accounts of all such money arned [sic}. That as by order of the vestry made no person shall be allowed more than one shilling a week out of the said workhouse as weekly pay. That the rent of the said house shall commence from Christmas last. That if at any thne any of the poor have occasion for wine by order of the doctor, it is to be paid by the parish. That the overseers of the said parish of Shoreham for the time being do once in the week inspect the said workhouse to see they have all things necessary. That the said Charles Broomfield shall be paid once in every month such money as is due to him from the said parish.' The rules were signed by the two churchwardens, the two overseers and seven members of the vestry.19 In April 1797, it seems that a smaUer house was rented for the poor. The miU-owner, Thomas Wihnott, who owned the former work- 18 Parish papers, op. cit., Vestry Minute Book, 29th December, 1782. 19 Ibid., 4th January, 1783. 196 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OP SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 house, rented tMs house and premises from the owner who hved M Cudham parish. The vestry, M its turn, rented tMs property for six guMeas for the term of six years: 'The vestry agrees to keep and leave • the said premises in good and sufficient tenantable repair at the expiration of the said term, also that John HaU nor Ms wife are to be put in the said premises.' In September 1802, the parish decided to 'Purchase a house and land of Mr. WUliam Jordan for the sum of one hundred pounds to convert into a worMiouse.' Perhaps the choice of a larger building and the decision to purchase reflected the general increase of poverty in the area at the turn of the century. The foUowing month, the vestry gave a description of the property and noted an increase in the price: 'TMee tenements and premises . . . at the sum of one hundred and ten pounds, Mr. Jourdan agreeing to apply one moiety of the expences of the conveyance and the parish the other.' The position of this workhouse, since replaced by later bmldMgs, appears on the Plan of the Intended Turnpike Road, surveyed M 1809.20 It stood on the north side of the junction of Shoreham Street with the road leadMg to the bridge, opposite to the almshouses and the cage, on the south side of the road. At tMs date, it was described as 'Four tenements and gardens' and, as four cottages, it was offered for sale in 1835. Five years earher, in April 1830, the specifications of a somewhat costly iron fence appear in the vestry book: four feet in height, the cost was to be twenty-four pounds with tMrty sMUings aUowed for paMt, 'Two coats the first year and tMee times witMn the first ten years.' The first Guardians of the Poor under the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act were appoMted in Shoreham in April 1835. In January, 1836, it was resolved to offer for sale by auction at a meeting of those 'Ratepayers and owners of property entitled to vote', 'TMee freehold tenements under one roof, two tenements (Leasehold) under one roof held for an unexpired term of sixty-six years at a ground rent of one pound per annum'. No one voted agaMst the resolution. A minute requested that apphcation be made to the Poor Law Commissioners to enquire as to the quota they required towards the new TJMon Workhouse at Sevenoaks. Any monies, remaimng in the treasurer's hands after the quota had been paid, together with any profit from the sale of the workhouse were to be invested M government securities by the justices for the benefit of the parish. But there was httle parocMal Mterest in the latter subject; only three persons were present at the next vestry meetmg called to consider tMs very subject and the meeting was adjourned. The sale of the workhouse property took place in September 1838, and in February 1847. A brief entry at the earher date records 20 K.A.O., Quarter Sessions Becords, Q.R.U. m. 19. 197 JOY SAYNOR that £96 3s. 8d. had been reahzed for a portion of the property and noting that the balance due to the Exchequer and Loan Commissioners for enlargMg and improvmg the union workhouse at Sevenoaks was £1,645 16s. Od. There is no record in the vestry book of the sale of the larger portion of the property, or whether the parish was able to pay the balance due to the Loan Commissioners. Some measure of out rehef in the form of the provision of clothes, a money dole and materials to spM or weave was provided by the parish in the later eighteenth century; tMs rehef is recorded at length in the vestry book. For example, M November 1785, Ehzabeth Powsey was to have 'A pair of shoes and some hnsey woolsoy [sic] and the widow C. a sMft, a pair of hoses, some flannel for an under petticoat and Sarah Johnson, a pair of shoes, a sMft and a petticoat'.21 Money doles were recorded in December 1786: 'The widow Powsey shall be allowed 5/- per week for the maMtaMMg her tMee children and at the same thne, it was agreed to aUow John Piper 5/- per week durMg Ms iUness'. DurMg the winter of 1787, the vestry had resolved that 'The poor in general that are found pMling hedges or steahng wood out of the woods or steahng turnips or hop powls [sic] shaU be prosecuted . . . at the expense of the parish'. But at the same meeting (January 1787), it was agreed that the parish officers should provide sufficient wood for the poors' rehef, 'As the vestry shaU think proper.'22 In the same year occurred the only entries concerned with the provision of raw materials to the poor. 'Mr. WarMg shaU be paid for the yarn he has provided for the poor and that he shaU provide what yarn shaU be wanting in future until further orders are given and that Mr. Waring shaU provide worsted for the same purpose of kmtting of stockMgs to those persons he shaU think fit.' In June, it was requested that Mr. WarMg be desired to stop the MiittMg and spimiing tiU the first day next month. Shoreham vestry provided medical attention both for the poor m the workhouse and for the paupers outside it. I t entered into several contracts carefully noted in the vestry book from 1783 onwards. The contract was usually for one year, with payment in a lump sum. Occasionally, the cost of treatment was a cause of dispute between parishes as instanced in the dispute concerning Richard Lane between Shoreham and Chelsfield. The first agreement for a parish doctor in the survivMg vestry book was in March 1783: 'Thomas Waring. To attend the poor of tMs parish as apothecary and surgeon on the following conditions for one year from the above date at £4r-3-9-|. To supply when needful with attendance and medisans [sic] aU the poor belonging to the parish of Shoreham . . . whether they receive alms or ai Parish papers, op. cit., Vestry Minute Book, 22nd November, 1785. 28 Ibid., 4th January, 1787. 198 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OP SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 not, . . . including all sickness and lameness, natural smallpox and aU exidents [sic] of aU Mnds, that is to say, that notMng but midwifery and cases thereon for one month is to be excepted. All paupers that faU sick or lame or meet with any accident witMn the said parish of Shoreham to be in tMs agreement.'23 The next agreement, in March 1788, was with a different surgeon, Mr. Clarke, and gives clear evidence of the parish assumMg responsibility for former parisMoners now hving in an adjoMMg parish and also agreeMg to extra payment for fractures and, as was usual, for midwifery cases. But in the foUowing year, Mr. Richards of Seal was appointed, 'Man midwife' as weU as surgeon and apothecary. By April 1815, the parish agreed to pay more than five times as much as they had offered in 1783 to George Edwardes of Farningham—£23 to include 'SmaUpox and venereal complaints' and 'If sent for in cases of midwifery, to charge one guMea each McludMg aU medical attendance'. Perhaps tMs payment is in hne with the equally Mgh salaries beMg paid to parish officials in Shoreham in the first half of the mneteenth century. In April 1829, £40 was paid to the assistant overseer for Ms year's service to recompense Mm for attendMg the magistrates' courts M Sevenoaks, only four and a half miles distant and for other journeys on behalf of the poor witMn five miles of Ms home.24 The single surveyor of the Mghways appoMted in 1836 was given a salary of £12 a year. TMs was the first time a single surveyor was appoMted. The practice and payment was continued each March until 1850, one individual holding the position for several years. The collector of the poor's quota was paid £5 a year in 1836. TMee years later Ms salary was Mcreased to £10 a year. The constable was not mentioned in the vestry book until 1845, by wMch time he had become a salaried official at £10 a year. Two years earher, a salaried parish clerk was appoMted at £12 a year. Certainly these salaries must have been a drain on parocMal resources. Perhaps the minute of 25th May, 1837, indicates tMs: 'Agreed to make a voluntary rate to cover the outstanding liabilities of the parish at the rate of four pence the pound'. The actual cost to the parish of parocMal poor rehef cannot be evaluated since no rate books have survived. The only evidence remains in the estimations the vestry made of what it considered would be the cost of rehef at any given time. These represent the hoped-for levy; what was actually collected remams uuknown. The total number of assessments agreed upon from 1783 to 1850 was 123, compared with 28 for the church and 12 for the Mghways. Between 1783 and 1800, the assessment was generaUy made twice » Ibid., 9th Maroh, 1783. ** Ibid., 15th April, 1829. 199 JOY SAYNOR in the year, averagMg tMee sMUings in the pound, with the exception of 1795 with four assessments totalhng five sMMngs. Between 1800 and 1806, three assessments a year were general, with an average assessment of six sMlfings. There was a shght improvement in the years between 1807 and 1810, but from 1810 to 1832, the assessment averaged six sMUings. In 1833 and 1834, eight sMUing assessments made tMee times M the year indicated that these years, with 1801 (8s. Qd.), were the worst for the parish poor. In 1838, when the first part of the workhouse property was sold, the assessment feU to two sMUings and ninepence; in 1839 and 1840 to two sMUings; in 1841 to one sMlhng, wMle from 1842 to 1850 no assessments were made. These large reductions indicate the effect of the new Umon workhouse at Sevenoaks upon parish finances. The only rate book extant among Shoreham records is among the private papers of the Mildmay estate.25 It is of considerably later date than the events wMch have been discussed above, having been made on 29th October, 1875, 'Under the authority of the Umon Assessment Committee Act of 1862 in force in tMs parish', for the benefit of the Umon workhouse at Sevenoaks. It is interesting to note that one of the churchwardens concerned in its preparation was George Wilmott; his forebear, Thomas Wilmott, features promMently as has been noted in the vestry book a century earher. In 1875, the rateable value of Shoreham parish was assessed as £13,848 2s. 6a!., with a gross estimated rental of £16,643 12s. 9d. (The rate was to be one sMUing in the pound; on tMs valuation it was to yield £692 8s. \\A.: £660 Is. 2d. was actuaUy coUected.) TMs valuation was more than double the figure for 1831, the earhest year for wMch a figure was given. The 1831 figure was £5,171.26 By the end of the century, a tMeefold increase on 1831 can be discerned: M 1899, it was estimated to be £16,512.27.Revaluations ordered by the vestry, durMg the years covered by the vestry book (1782-1850), were duly noted m the book M November 1803, and M July 1835. There is no Mdication of the rateable value of the parish before or after either revaluation, although after the 1803 revaluation a vestry meeting was caUed on 27th March, 1804, 'For the purpose of giving those persons rehef who tMnk themselves aggrieved by the late ad valorem of tMs parish. It is now by us agreed . . . we normnate and appoint Mr. Thos. Fuller and Mr. Jas. Martyr to meet the original surveyor in order to hear the several complaints and then to survey the respective 25 Mildmay Papers, op. cit., in note 6, Bate Booh, 1875. 86 S. Bagshaw, History, Gazeteer and Directory of the County of Kent, Sheffield, 1847, i, 662. 27 Kelly's Directory of Kent, London, 1899. 200 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OP SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 premises and their determination thereon to be final in every respect.'28 The earher decision to have the parish revalued (November 1803), was thus recorded: 'On the present circumstance of tilings, it was thought advisable and finaUy fix'd on, to have the whole of the parish valued as soon as it convemently can be done.' 'The present circumstance of things' would seem to be a reference to the purchase of tMee tenements to convert into a workhouse in the previous year, 1802. The 1835 revaluation must have been the first of several between then and the end of the century, bearMg in mind the tMee-fold increase in value. The vestry book stated it was 'For the purpose of equalisMg the rates of the parish as many alterations and improvements have taken place m the parish since the valuation made by Messrs. Thompson and Selby' (in 1803). No further rates were to be imposed until after the revaluation; the proposed surveyor was to come from more than fifteen miles away from the parish. Two gentlemen were apphed to, from Reigate and Gilhngham, five gmneas a day each and expenses were required by them. Five months later a vestry mMute recorded that payment for the revaluation was to be advanced on the parish account. At the end of the January foUowing (January 1836), the vestry had to defer maMng a new rate for the poor because the book contaMing the new valuation was not in the hands of the overseer. By June 1838, the vestry were again considermg revaluation, at least partially: James Green of Sevenoaks was to 'Value the improvements'. These latter were specificaUy referred to as 'Viz. the new Dower in the paddock and the New Inn on the London road on Sepham farm'. The paddock, still known by tMs name, is to the south of the former Shoreham Place, the re-built New Court of earher years; it is first mentioned in the marriage settlement of HumpMey St. John Mildmay, drawn up in September 1823.29 The New Inn became known as the PolMU Arms some years later when the South-Eastern Railway Company named their newly-constructed tunnel the PoMll tunnel, after the family wMch stiU owned the MU under wMch it passed. As to the rates themselves, generaUy the vestry levied them with a specific purpose in mind. It has already been noted that the poor rate outnumbered aU those levied for other purposes and recorded in the vestry book. Other recurring rates were for the repair of the Mghways, the renewal of the church fabric and, in the early nineteenth century, to contribute towards the new county gaol and the county lunatic asylum then under construction at Maidstone. There were few references to what seems to be a general rate. One such, in October 1786, the vestry confirmed a rate of one sMUMg and sixpence and 28 Parish papers, op. cit., Vestry Minute Book, 27th Maroh, 1804. 20 Mildmay Papers, op. cit., in note 8, marriage settlement, 1823. 201 JOY SAYNOR stated that 'AU biUs shaU be paid and other demands likewise witMn forty days after the assignment of the rate'. The pressure of the upkeep of the workhouse, only sold m 1847 although the vestry had taken the decision to seU it M 1836, together with the relatively Mgh salaries to parish officials obviously placed a heavy burden on the parish. In May 1837, the vestry agreed 'To make a voluntary rate to cover the outstandMg liabilities of the parish at the rate of four pence the pound'. Earlier M January of the same year, the vestry had decided that the owners of houses and apartments rather than the occupiers should pay rates. Apart from the poor rate, the Mghway rate varied between sixpence and two sMMngs and fourpence halfpenny; the latter figure M August 1814; sixpence was the more usual figure. The church rate varied between fourpence and mnepence, usually levied once in the year. For Maidstone gaol, twopence or tMeepence was levied twice in the year between 1814 and 1822 and for the asylum ranging from one penny to tMeepence between 1829 and 1836. In 1831, the rates for the asylum were noted as being 'A special county rate'. The only source of Mformation regardMg parish officers is agaM the vestry book and therefore several questions as to their tenure and duties must remam unanswered. For instance, it cannot be discovered whether the rota of overseers was based on the tenure of certaM properties. The churchwardens and overseers were both appointed at the same vestry on Easter Monday; the incumbent choosing one churchwarden, the second beMg generally chosen by the vestry, occasionaUy by the titular, but not actual, lord of the manor, HumpMey St. John Mildmay, as in March 1845. No women were appoMted as overseers, although several women held positions of importance in parish Ufe during the mneteenth century. In April 1829, the vestry was asked to consider 'The propriety of appoMtMg an assistant overseer'. TMs was the year foUowing the mention of a select vestry, and the fortunate nominee was paid £40 for Ms tenure of office. Two of the ten parisMoners nommated were chosen as surveyors of the Mghways, until 1836, when a single surveyor was chosen at a salary of £12 a year, a payment wMch contMued until 1850. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act resulted in the nomination of unpaid guardians of the poor in April 1835, and of a coUector of the poor's quota M 1836 with an aUowance of £5 a year increased to £10 in 1839. The constable was not mentioned until 1845 when twenty persons were nominated 'As Uable to serve the ofiice of constable'. Thomas Brooker was chosen, with the salary of £10 a year. A salaried parish clerk was appoMted two years earlier beMg paid £12 a year for Ms services. The 'Beatel' mentioned in April 1816, had been unpaid.30 30 Parish papers, op. cit., Vestry Minute Book, April 1816. 202 THE PARISH ADMINISTRATION OF SHOREHAM, 1782-1894 No conclusions will be attempted for tMs survey of parish admMistration. Shoreham must differ httle from the vast majority of Kentish rural parishes during the period examined, except in that it was margMaUy more prosperous than many. Perhaps its umqueness lay only in its undoubted beauty, preserved for posterity in Samuel Palmer's landscapes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to the Hon. Mrs. Mildmay-WMte for permission to consult the Mildmay private papers in so far as they relate to the parish of Shoreham, and to the Vicar of Shoreham for permission to transcribe the Vestry Minute Book and to consult other records in the parish chest. 203