Finances and Government of Canterbury: Eighteenth to mid-nineteenth Century Court of Guardians

FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY: EIGHTEENTH TO MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY COURT OF GUARDIANS F. H. PANTON INTRODUCTION Previous papers 1 •2 have given accounts of the local government of the City and the County of the City of Canterbury in the eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century, in the light of the financial circumstances of the City Authorities. These accounts have described the finances and functioning of the Burghmote and the more democratic Council which succeeded it under the Municipal Corporations Act of 18353 ; the workings of the Pavement Commissioners set up in 17874 ; and the ways in which Law and Order were kept and financed in the County of the City. In addition, some mention was made of the third Corporation in the City, distinct from the City Burghmote or Council, and from the Corporation of the Commissioners of the Pavement - the Corporation of the Court of Guardians of the Poor. This present paper gives more details of the operation and finances of the Court of Guardians, and its relationship with the other two Corporations and with the organisation of Law and Order in the City and the County of the City of Canterbury in the period under review. 1 F.H. Panton, 'The Finances and Government of the City and County of Canterbury in the 18th and early 19th Century', Arch. Cant., cix (1991), 191-246. 2 F.H. Panton, 'Finances and Government of Canterbury, Early to Mid 19th Century', Arch. Cant., cxii (1993), 25-54. 3 5 and 6 Will IV C76, 1835. 4 F.H. Panton, 'Turnpike Roads in the Canterbury Area', Arch. Cant., cii (1985), 179-83. 147 F. H. PANTON FORMATION OF A CENTRAL POOR RELIEF AUTHORITY FOR CANTERBURY Since Tudor times, the parish had been established as the normal unit of administration for the relief of the poor. Accordingly, the fourteen parishes of Canterbury were responsible for their own poor until 1727 /28. In that year an Act5 was procured 'for erecting a workhouse in the City of Canterbury for employing and maintaining the Poor there', setting up a Corporation of a Court of Guardians of the Poor, with powers to bring together and centrally control as one unit the care of the poor of Canterbury's fourteen parishes. Other towns, such as Bristol (1696) had taken such a step before Canterbury, with results which did not seem to be particularly advantageous financially, though the central workhouse concept seemed to have a useful deterrent effect. An Act of 1723 had allowed parishes to build and manage workhouses and to deny relief to those who refused to enter them, but it was not until Gilbert's Act of 1782 that parishes were generally encouraged to bond together in larger entities to build institutes to house all classes of the destitute, except the able-bodied, and they were not compelled to do so until the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. That Canterbury was ahead of its time in promoting a private Act to create a Corporation of Guardians of the poor for the City, superseding and assimilating the efforts of the individual parishes, may partly be due to the increasing burden which care of the poor put on the individual parishes, but the process was obviously made easier by the fact that the City already owned a building with an income from land endowments which could readily be adapted for use as a workhouse. The preamble to the Act of 1727 reads in part 'wherever the numbers of poor people have, of late years, much increased throughout the whole Kingdom of England, and particularly in the City of Canterbury, and whereas erecting of publick Workhouses for imploying the Poor, had been found to be the most proper method for the prevention and removal of the great Mischiefs arising from such numbers of unemployed Poor ...' and the Act went on to vest the Hospital of the Poor Priests, with its revenues, in a Corporation of a Court of Guardians of the poor for the City. POOR PRIESTS HOSPITAL The Poor Priests Hospital had been granted, with endowments, to the Mayor and Commonalty of Canterbury by Queen Elizabeth in 1575. The 5 An Act for erecting a workhouse in the City of Canterbury, for employing and maintaining the poor there, and for the better enlightening the streets of the said City. 1 Geo 11 Cap 20. 148 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY hospital, founded in the thirteenth century as an almshouse, and rebuilt in stone in the fourteenth century, had escaped Dissolution. In 1575, the last Master, Blaise Winter, surrendered it and its endowments, to the Queen, and she transferred ownership to the Mayor and Commonalty during the course of a visit to Canterbury on 5 July, 1575. The City Fathers used the hospital to house and finance a Blue Coat School for sixteen poor boys between the ages of 13 and 15, and as a Bridewell, or, house of correction, for minor offences. The endowments acquired with the hospital were quite substantial. They included some 18 different holdings of land and property in Canterbury or its outlying villages, comprising in all some 200 acres, widely dispersed in small fields, isolated from one another. Income from leases at that time amounted to about £400 p.a.6 COURT OF GUARDIANS The Act of 1727 set up, as from May 1728, a Corporation of the Court of Guardians of the poor of the City of Canterbury, as a legal entity, capable of owning land and property, able to sue and be sued, to have a common seal, to make bylaws for and govern the poor under their care. The Court consisted of the 'Mayor, Recorder, and Justices of the Peace of the said City, and County of the same for the time being; and also Twenty-eight other persons to be chosen out of the ablest and discreetest Inhabitants of the Parishes within the said City, hereafter mentioned, two out of each Parish'. The Justices of the Peace for Canterbury were the Mayor, the Recorder and those Aldermen who had filled the office of Mayor (up to 12 in number). Procedures for election of Guardians from the parishes were defined in detail - viz: The Parish Clerk should give notice on the Sunday preceding the election which should take place in the Parish Church between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. Should a parish refuse or neglect to choose Guardians, the JPs for the City were empowered to appoint two of the ablest and discreetest inhabitants. At its annual General Meeting in the first week in July, the Court of Guardians chose by majority vote from amongst their number, a President (as Chairman) and a Receiver (as Treasurer) and appointed a schoolmaster, clerk and other officers and servants, and fixed their salaries. The Guardians were authorised to use profits from the Poor Priest Hospital endowments for its maintenance, provided that they continued to main- 6 Inventory of 'Maps and Estates belonging to the Workhouse', compiled by W. Picard in 1772, and described as 'copied from original maps'. Canterbury Cathedral Library CC.4GBW.L. 149 F. H. PANTON tain a Blue Coat School and a Bridewell in the hospital. In addition, they were enabled to extract Poor Rates, as they judged necessary, from 'every inhabitant, Person, Vicar and others and, of every Occupier of Lands . . .'. The intended rate had to be certified under seal to the Mayor, Recorder and Justices of the Peace, who were required (any two or more of them) to grant their warrant to the overseers of the parishes, to organise collection of the rate. Church wardens and overseers of the parishes were made responsible to the Guardians for matters relating to the poor. The powers of the Guardians extended to the ability to summon inhabitants before them, on pain of fine up to 40s., to answer on oath any matters relating to the Corporation's affairs. They could order constables and borsholders to compel vagrants and beggars to enter the workhouse, and to enforce the rules of the workhouse by inflicting corporal punishment or imprisonment in the bridewell. Persons applying for relief could be directed to the workhouse or given out-relief as the Guardians thought fit. Refusal to go into the house could cause any relief to be withheld. ESTABLISHING THE WORKHOUSE The Court met for the first time on 2nd July, 1728. A list of those attending and of officers elected is given at Annex A.7 The first tasks of the Court, after electing John Hardres, Esq., of St. George's Parish, as President, and Bradnox Brandon, Gentleman, of St. Peter's, as Receiver (i.e. Treasurer), were to survey the hospital buildings for repair and adaptation, and to order overseers in each parish to lay their old sess books before Court, preparatory to levying a rate. By the 5th July, plans for adaptation of the hospital into a workhouse were accepted, and £400 borrowing against the rates was authorised to meet expenses. Several lessees of parts of the hospital were persuaded to quit their leases with compensation. A Master of the Workhouse (John Bell) was appointed at a salary of £20 p.a. (plus free board and lodging) and a Mistress (Elizabeth Cooper) was engaged at £10 p.a. plus lodging, etc. The Master was required to instruct youth in the workhouse in reading, writing and accounts, and to 'give instruction in whatever manufacture he is capable'. Alderman Jacob (Mayor and also, therefore, a Guardian) was appointed surgeon to the workhouse at £20 p.a. (including medicine) and to have the care of the out-poor at the same rate as other apothecaries. By the end of September 1728, the workhouse was ready to take in the poor from the parishes. St. Mildred's poor were due in on 24th Sep- 7 Taken from Canterbury Cathedral Archives CC4/9 A/1. 150 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY tember, St. Paul's on the 25th, St. George's 26th, St. Andrew's 27th, Northgate 28th, St. Mary Bredin 30th, St. Mary Magdalene 1st October, St. Martin's Holy Cross and St. Peter's on 2nd, St. Margaret's and St. Mary Bredman 3rd, and St. Alphege and All Saints on 4th. Also in October, the Guardians took a 60-year lease on land over the river at the back of the workhouse, building there a working shed and storehouse, with a bridge over the river for easy access. Orders were sent to all constables and borsholders to compel vagabonds and beggars to go into the workhouse. Rules for the conduct of the house were established. These specified: prayers twice a day, all to attend; church twice on Sunday, on pain of losing a meal, second offenders to be confined to bridewell, third offenders to be 'severely whipt'. Hours set were: Bell at 5 a.m. summer, 6 a.m. winter; work 6 a.m. summer, 7 a.m. winter; breakfast 8 a.m. summer, 9 a.m. winter; dinner 12 noon and 1 p.m.; bed by 9 p.m. summer, 8 p.m. winter; no smoking at work or in bed. Inhabitants were to be paid ld. in the ls. for work done, and those refusing work would be committed to bridewell. A dietary regime was promulgated as follows.8 Day Breakfast Dinner Supper Sunday Bread, Cheese or Beef, Pudding, Bread, Cheese Butter Roots or Herbs and Butter Monday Broth Rice Milk do. Tuesday Milk Porridge As Sunday do. Wednesday Broth Pease Porridge do. Thursday Milk Porridge As Sunday do. Friday Beef Broth Milk Porridge do. Saturday Bread, Cheese or Thick Milk do. Butter Each person smoking was allowed 2 oz tobacco a week. Beer was supplied, bought at 8s. a barrel. Suppliers of food, drink and other provisions to the workhouse were changed regularly, sometimes fortnightly, sometimes monthly. Appointments of tradesmen and craftsmen to meet the needs of the workhouse were made yearly, again most often on a rotation basis. This system was obviously intended to benefit from competitive tenders, and to distribute the custom of the Guardians widely. 8 Ibid., 15 October, 1728. 151 F. H. PANTON The businesses of individual Guardians benefited along with other businesses in the community. From the start, the Guardians began to apply the laws of Settlement more rigorously than they might have been by individual parishes. In February 1728/1729 they ordered parish officers to summon 66 persons before the Justices for illegal residence in the City, and for removal to their places of legal residence.9 In accordance with the 1727 Act, in October 1728, a bond was sealed between the Guardians and the Mayor and Commonalty, as one Corporation to another, whereby the Guardians formally undertook to maintain the Blue Coat School of the Boys as a separate entity in the hospital buildings, and to continue to employ John Scrimshaw at £16 p.a., plus keep, as their teacher. The boys would continue to be admitted by nomination of the Mayor and Commonalty, and at the age of 15 would be placed out as apprentices by the Guardians, with a sum of money for the apprentice master, initially set at £5, together with expenses of indenture. Payment to the apprentice master rose over the years to £10 and then to £20. The Guardians saw fit to have a clock erected on the workhouse, at a cost of £20, by one of their number, Alderman Shindler. In a further attention to the dignity of the Court, in June 1729, a previous order for a design of the Arms of the City quartered with representation of Charity on the Common Seal was declared void. The impression was not deep enough, and Charity had but two children. The design was ordered to be re-done, with another child added to Charity's brood. 10 By the end of the first year of operation, the Guardians had created a central system to organise and conduct the work previously done by 14 separate parishes, incorporating the existing effort available in those parishes. On 1st July, 1729, the second Annual General Meeting of Court was held, at which George Lynch (All Saints) was elected President and Bradnox Brandon re-elected Receiver. The Guardians' mark was quite literally set on the poor of Canterbury when in 1730 they decided that 'for the future, the Poor of every Parish who receive any relief from this Corporation shall wear a Badge on the right sleeve of their upper Garment a mark of a Roman P and the first letter of the Parish to which they belong, otherwise not to be relieved. 11 9 Ibid., 11 February, 1728/29. 5 in St. Paul's, 12 St. George's, I St. Margaret's, 2 St. Mary Bredin, 4 St. Mildred's, I St. Mary Bredman, 2 St. Peter's, 19 St. Mary Northgate, 5 St. Alphege, 13 St. Mary Magdalene, 2 St. Paul's. ' 0 Ibid., 4 June, 1729. '' Ibid., 3 March, 1729/30. 152 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY INCOME OF THE GUARDIANS Apart from revenues from property and lands, and from the profit (if any) gained from the work of the paupers, the main source of income of the Guardians was from the Poor Rate. Some idea how great was the Guardians' need for income from this source in the early years of their existence may be gathered from a Rate Book for the years 1750-5312 which has survived. For those years, seven collections of ls. in the £1 are recorded, separately attested by two JPs for Canterbury, and two Kent County JPs for that part of St. Paul's Parish lying within Kent County. 13 Dates of collection were 11 February, 1750/51, 6 August, 1751, 7 January 1751/52, 21 July, 1752, 29 January, 1752/53, 3 June, 1753, 14 December, 1753. The collection was about £500 each time making a grand total of about £3,500. Details of the collection of 11 February, 1750/51, at ls. in the £1 are given in Appendix B. Most individual rates levied amounted to no more than a few shillings at ls. in the £1. In some instances the highest amount paid in a parish came from the parson's tithes - for instance, in St. Mildred's, the Revd Deafoy topped the list, and in St. George's, the archdeacon. The contribution made by St. Paul's, at £86 18s. 6d., was by far the largest from the Parishes, and the major portion of that came from the Kent County part of the parish. The largest individual contribution was from a Mrs Rook in the Kent County section of St. Paul's, who paid £27 10s. for tithes she received (source unspecified) to the value of £550. The total number of ratepayers was about 1,700. The wealth and standing of each parish may be indicated not only by the amount of rate produced, but also by the number of householders listed as excused payment of poor rates on account of poverty. For Holy Cross, none are so listed; St. Margaret's 9; St. Andrew's 1; St. Peter's 18; St. Mary Magdalene 11; St. George's 29; All Saints 8; St. Paul's 12; St. Mary Bredin 3; St. Martin's nil; St. Mary Bredman 13; St. Mildred's 46; St. Mary Northgate 4; St. Alphege 7; St. Paul's (Kent) nil. Detailed records of the accounts of the workhouse year by year do not seem to be available, but Brent14 gives some information on accounts for 1746, derived from John Clarke, then Master of the workhouse, as follows: 12 Canterbury Cathedral Archives. CCQGB T8/l . 13 The Act of 1727 specifically placed the whole of St. Paul's Parish, including that part lying in the County of Kent, under the jurisdiction of the Canterbury Guardians for poor rate purposes, certification of the rate for that part in Kent to be a matter for Kent County JPs. 14 John Brent Jun., Canterbu,y in the Olden Time, Simpkin Marshall, 1879, 179-80. 153 F. H. PANTON £ s. d. 1746 Maintenance of the Workhouse 1411 4 2 Received by earnings of the Poor 190 15 31 2 Rent, Poor Priests 128 10 0 For maintaining George Howerd 6 2 0 To be deducted 324 13 3! 2 Charge to the City 1086 10 10½ We may assume that the rental income is a portion of that from the Poor Priests lands and property, with the remainder (some £200-£300, probably) devoted to the care and education of the Blue Coat Boys. The figures above, therefore, relate solely to the care of paupers in the house. Clarke gives the number of these as 171. Similar statements for the years 1751 and 1752 are given by Alderman Gray15 in his notebook. On Gray's election as President of the Court of Guardians for the first time in July 1752, Henry Simmons, then Master, gave him an account as follows for July 1751 to July 1752. £ s. d. Balance 28 June, 1751 171 8 11¼ Total disbursement 1493 19 11¾ 1665 8 11 The Receiver by Sundry Accounts: To a sess 6 August, 1751 499 2 1 To a sess 7 January, 1752 482 0 3 By Rents 148 15 2 Earnings of the Poor 203 7 61 2 Wood Sales and Arrears on sesses 184 4 8 1517 9 8½ Balance 23 June, 1752 147 19 21 2 1665 8 11 15 Alderman W. Gray, 1695-1784. Freeman 1721. Common Councillor 1724. Alderman 1748-81. Mayor 1748 and 1760. President of the Court of Guardians 1752 and eight other years. Alderman Gray left a manuscript notebook in which he recorded a variety of information about Canterbury, its government and his part in it. The Notebook is preserved in the Canterbury Cathedral Library as Supplementary MS No. 6. 154 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY When earnings of the poor, rent and sundries are taken out of the total disbursement, the net charge to the City is £1182 4s. 1 l½d. The number in the house at July 1752 was given as 188. A similar summary for the year ending July 1753, noted by Ald. Gray, shows a total disbursement of £1454 6s. 7½d., with sesses of £494 19s. 2d. (21 July 1752), £491 8s. ll½d. (29 January 1753), income from rents £148 16s. 1 ld., from wood sales and sundries £69 12s. 2½d. and from earnings of the poor £224 16s. 7½d. The net charge to the City was £1,029 7s. 5½d., with 187 in the house. We may conclude from all this that the income of the Guardians in the late 1740s, early 1750s was not more than about £1,500 p.a., £1,000- £1,200 from the rates, and the remainder from property, land and income from the work of the poor. The figures would seem to imply that the average cost of keeping a pauper (taking no account of age or sex) in the late 1740s, early 1750s was just over £8 a year, or about 3s. a week. Nearly 100 years later, in 183516 it was reported to the Guardians that with an average number of paupers in the house of 271 (a considerable increase in total number), maintenance and clothing cost annually £2,877 2s. 4d., an average of just over 4s. a week. Not only, therefore, had the number of paupers to be maintained in the house risen during the years from 1746 to 1835, due to unemployment, but the average cost of maintaining a pauper had risen by a significant amount, presumably due at least in part to inflation. That the total cost of maintaining the workhouse in Canterbury had reached high levels in the late 1820s, early 1830s, due to inflation and unemployment, is borne out by the figures produced by a Committee of Finance set up by the Guardians in 1833 to investigate discrepancies in the then Receivers' records. 17 The committee's summary of rates drawn in the years 1829-32 showed that in 1829/30 eight rates were collected, in 1831 five rates and in 1831/32 three rates. Twelve rates collected an amount of £1,700 each, one at £2,000 and two at £2,500. The total of 16 rates in three years yielded in all £30,360 3s. An average of about £10,000 for each of the three years is a staggering sum showing just how much the burden of the poor had increased in Canterbury, as in other parts of Kent, in the years before the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 came into effect. These large amounts must have included provision for out-relief of perhaps one or two thousand pounds p.a., in addition to support for the 270 or so in-house. The total amount quoted may also 16 Canterbury Cathedral Archives. CCQGB D2/8 13 September, 1833. 17 Ibid., 21 June, 1833 (see Appendix D for an extract of these figures). 155 F. H. PANTON have included sums of some hundreds of pounds a year collected by the Guardians on behalf of the Justices of the Peace in Canterbury, for defraying the cost of assizes, etc. Nevertheless, comparing amounts collected in 1750-53 with those collected in 1829-32, it would seem that the burden of the poor rate had increased several fold. Figures available for the years 1836-5218 indicate a level of expenditure somewhat lower than the heights reached in the late 1820s, early 1830s. The total yearly parochial rate expended ranged from £7,000 to £9,000 but more often than not, well over £8,000. This figure included the Borough rate (which itself provided for costs of law and order and police force) collected by the Guardians for the Canterbury Council set up to replace the Burghmote by an Act of 1835, of between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. Expenditure by the Guardians on other matters ran at between a few hundred and about a thousand pounds a year. The total expenditure on the poor, therefore, ranged between £4,500 and £6,500 a year. After a new Union building had been established in Canterbury in 1848 to replace the hospital, records show that maintenance of the inpoor in 1849 cost £1,514, £1,256 in 1850, £1,166 in 1851 and £876 in 1852. The cost of out-relief in those years was £2,896, £2,435, £2,111 and £2,232. Also shown for these years is an item for 'other expenses connected with relief' of £1,297, £1,960, £2,219 and £2,407. Total amounts spend on the poor in the years 1849 to 1852 were £5,769, £5,651, £5,494 and £5,155. We see, therefore, that in these years when the central Commissioners of the Poor had assumed overall direction of the Canterbury Court of Guardians, expenditure on the poor in Canterbury decreased somewhat. By comparison, Kent County expenditure on the poor decreased rather more markedly, from £297,000 in 1835 to £185,000 in 1852. 19 ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANISATION Designated committees of Guardians met weekly between monthly meetings of the full Court to progress specific areas of activity. The number and range of Committees varied from time to time, but they generally covered: Internal Management; Tradesmen's Bills (meeting on 18 Robert A. Scott, 'Administration of the Poor Law in Canterbury Under a Local Act of 1727, with particular reference to the years 1834 to c. 1850', April 1979, Canterbury University Thesis, Appendix A of that paper. 19 Ibid., table in Appendix B of Scott's thesis. 156 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY Mondays); Stores (as and when necessary); Assessments (of rating values, meeting Thursdays at 6 p.m.); Relief of the Poor (paupers relieved not resident in the workhouse, Fridays 2 p.m.); Survey and Repairs (of the Guardians' property, including the workhouse); Settlements and Removals (ensuring that all paupers were a charge on their home parish); Manufactory (organising work done by workhouse paupers) and Agriculture (mainly organising a short-lived scheme in the 1830s to enable paupers to cultivate some of the Guardians' land). Dayto- day running of the workhouse under the guidance of the Court and its Committees was, of course, the duty of the Master and Mistress (generally man and wife). Officers and their renumerations were chosen and fixed annually at the AGM of the Court in the first week in July. Craftsmen such as carpenter, cooper, brazier, bricklayer, glazier, white smith, blacksmith, basketmaker, breechmaker, cutler, tailor and barber were also appointed annually in July, to work as necessary for the Guardians. The financial affairs of the Guardians were in the hands of the Receiver, who, although electable yearly, generally served for a number of consecutive years. Initially, he relied on the (unpaid) Overseers and Constables in the parishes to collect rates, enforce settlements and other decisions of Court. Over the years, this proved a somewhat unsatisfactory method of collection, and in 1814 an Act was procured which, in part enabled the Guardians to appoint a Collector or Collectors to act instead of, or in conjunction with, Overseers to collect rates.2° For some years, the Collector acted in conjunction with the Overseers, but, in 1831, Henry Taylor and Samuel White were appointed Collectors in the room of and instead of the Overseers.21 A Collector received 2½d. for every £1 collected, and was obliged to hand over rate money every Thursday to the Receiver. The Receiver's accounts were inspected annually by a committee of the whole Court, but it was not until 1789 that Accounts were published yearly in the local newspapers for the scrutiny of the ratepayers.22 The Assessments Committee provided a mechanism for hearing appeals against rates, but appeals could be pursued through the Magistrates after a decision by the Court of Guardians. Overseers were also sued when delivery of rates collected by them became overdue. Under the Master, there was an extensive infrastructure of paupers 20 54 Geo III 1814 Cap 114. 'Act for altering, amending and rendering more effective the Act of 1 Geo C20 for erecting a Workhouse in Canterbury'. 21 CCQGB D2/8 23 August, 1831. 22 CCQGB An 7 July, 1789. 157 F. H. PANTON given small weekly allowances for carrying out specific tasks in the House. In 1821, an Order for allowances for paupers included:23 Men: Archer, carpenter 6d. Joshua, bricklayer 3d. Allwight, bricklayer 3d. Burrows, bridewell keeper and bell ringer 6d. Marsh, baker 3d. Adams, carter 3d. Coffee, carter 3d. Taylor, stable and hogman 3d. Adams, porter 3d. Drury, attendant on Blue Boys 6d. Cock, woodcutter 3d. Ellis, taylor ½d. Boyle, bread cutter 6d. Gunder, porter 6d. Hawkes, girls' schoolmaster 3d. per day. Thorpe, shoemaker 5d. Thorpe jun., Wickenden, Simmons, shoemakers ½d. Sampson, boys' schoolmaster 4d. Cook, hospital man 3d. Harriss, cellarman 3d. Women: Mummery, cook 6d. Trager, nurse foul ward 6d. Stephens, nurse men's room 4d. Spain, schoolmistress 3d. Scragg, nurse hospital 8d. Hare, nurse hospital 2d. Stockbridge, women's room 4d. Welsh, nurse Blue Boys 3d. Burger, men's hospital nurse 6d. Cawley, men's wool room 3d. Mayes, laundry woman 4d. Longbridge, nurse 3d. Gaffee, nurse, old women's room 2d. Thrymn, orphan's nurse 3d. Nowers, nurse house 4d. Jeslun, hall cleaner ld. Altogether, it would seem that at least 40 of the in-paupers out of a total of 250 or so were employed on tasks about the house, and were therefore presumably not available for other, and perhaps more productive, tasks. DISCIPLINE IN THE WORKHOUSE Penalties exacted by the Guardians on the paupers for indiscipline and breaking the rules of the workhouse included restriction of diet, incarceration in the bridewell, whipping in various degrees and putting in the stocks on public display. All these penalties were directed by the Court under their powers as in the 1727 Act, to be carried out by the Master and his staff. Serious offences of a criminal nature, such as larger scale theft or embezzlement would be referred to the Mayor and Justices of Canterbury County for trial. Court records down the years note a number of punishments, sometimes giving details of offences committed. Misbehaviour, running away, stealing and selling workhouse property, not working as directed, getting drunk, etc., were the usual charges. For instance, on 20 August, 1744, Anne Eldridge was sentenced first 23 CCQGB D2/8 15 March, 1821. 158 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY to be whipped for misbehaviour and then discharged from the workhouse. 24 In February 1744/45 John Willen25 was whipped for stealing bread and porter and, in November 1748, Anne Brier for deserting and making away with her clothes.26 Some punishments seem particularly severe. In April 1765, Ann Hicks was sentenced to 20 lashes on her bare back for stealing goods and Dorothy Havard to 10 lashes on her bare back for stealing meat from the brine tub.27 Punishments were not restricted to the paupers; occasionally the staff were also punished. In August 1763, J. Cheaver, schoolmaster, was sentenced to 10 strokes of the cane for misbehaviour, to be kept in the bridewell until the next Court (about one month) and then to receive another 10 strokes of the cane.28 We can only speculate about the nature of his offence, but it does not seem to have put an end to his employment. He was schoolmaster again in 17 67. 29 In December 17 66, the porter in the workhouse was sent to bridewell for getting 'drunk and otherwise behaving ill'. His misbehaviour was associated with that of three women in the house, who at the time were 'whipt for getting drunk and loosing cl other'. 30 Other punishments which may be noted include the case of Sarah Gold, who was 'publicly whipt', together with Sara Willes, for not doing work in the proper manner as directed, in December 1777.31 In December 1792, there is reference in the Court records of stocks being ordered, together with dresses painted yellow to be worn by culprits placed in the stocks. In February 1793, Ann Towle and Mary Dowling were sentenced to sit in the stocks for two hours, in yellow dresses.32 A particular scandal which appeared to come to an indeterminate end occurred in 1815.33 In March of that year, Samuel Cripple was committed by the Mayor to Westgate gaol for indecent assault and exposure of his person to Mary Webb (aged 15) and Mary Gaton in the hall of the workhouse. At the same time, the Mayor sent Mary Elliot and Mary Saffery (both 17) to bridewell for immoral and indecent conduct with one month bread and water. Charles Holland was committed along with them. The 24 CCQGB D2/1 20 August, 1744. 25 Ibid., 7 February, 1744. 26 CCQGB D2/2 1 November, 1748. 27 CCQGB D2/4 29 April, 1765. 28 CCQGB D2/4 7 August, 1763. 29 CCQGB D2/5 7 July, 1767. 3° CCQGB D2/5 29 December, 1766. 31 CCQGB A/2 2 December, 1777. 32 CCQGB D3/1 31 December, 1729. 33 CCQGB D2/7 22 March, 1815. 159 F. H. PANTON 'supine conduct of the Master and Mistress respecting immoral and indecent conduct' was condemned by the Court and at the April meeting of Court, Humphrey and Susannah Crouch were ordered to be removed from office on 14 May, as being incompetent to discharge their duties. However, in April, at an Extraordinary Court, Cripple was ordered to be discharged from gaol and given 20s. to look for work. The Crouchs' hold on office was extended and at the July AGM of Court, they were confirmed in office. All in all, while the punishments exacted by the Guardians seem exorbitant and cruel by modern standards, they do not seem to have been imposed all that frequently. Over the years between 1728 and 1834 only a couple of dozen whippings, etc., are recorded in the extant records. Perhaps the threat of corporal punishment and gaoling, combined with the general oppressiveness of the workhouse regime, provided a deterrent which reduced serious offences to a minimum. SALARIES OF OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS OF THE COURT OF GUARDIANS Members of the Court of Guardians received no emoluments for their service. Among the officers of the Court, in 1744 the Receiver was renumerated with £10 p.a., plus 4½ per cent p.a. on any money he advanced to the Court, and any interest he might gain from his holding of the Court's money; the Clerk received £10 plus usual legal fees for indentures, etc.; and the Surgeon £30, which included the cost of any medicines. Among the appointed officials, the Master of the Workhouse was paid £15 p.a., with free lodging and meals; the Mistress £10 p.a., with free lodging and meals; and the Chaplain £10 p.a. For some years a practice was established of voting year-end gratuities for 'Extraordinary Trouble during the previous year'. For instance, in 1777, the Recorder, Clerk and Chaplain received gratuities of £5 each, with officials receiving smaller amounts, down to 2s. 6d. for the Beadle. This practice had been abandoned by the nineteenth century, but by then emoluments had risen considerably. By 1830, the Receiver was paid £75 p.a., Surgeon £60, Chaplain £20, Schoolmaster £50, Master £30 (plus allowances), Mistress £25 (plus allowances). The Clerk at that time was given no stated salary, but charged legal fees appropriate to the duties involved. There is no evidence that the President of the Court received any salary or fees. EMPLOYMENT OF PAUPERS Those paupers not busy on tasks concerned with the maintenance and running of the workhouse, or not too young, too old, too blind or too ill 160 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY to work, were employed on a variety of tasks, mainly to do with spinning and weaving. The report by John Clarke, Master, on 'state of the Poor in the City workhouse' 1st July, 1746,34 lists 172 people in the workhouse: 21 men, of whom 10 worked on in-house tasks, and 10 on manufacture; 42 women, 14 on workhouse tasks; 66 boys, 44 on manufacture; and 46 girls, 36 on manufacture; making a total of 24 adults and 80 children manufacturing products to be sold. The tasks listed included: hop bagging, picking tow, drawing cords, spinning hemp and flax, knitting and sewing. The total income earned from these activities was £190 ls. 3½d., as a contribution to the £1,411 4s. 2d. needed to maintain the in-poor in that year. In 1752, the position presented by H. Summers, Master, to Ald. Gray, President, was somewhat similar. Of the workhouse population of 187, 20 of the 28 men worked, while four did nothing and four were sick; 37 of the 50 women worked, eight doing nothing, five sick; 34 boys out of 64 worked, 28 doing nothing, with two sick; and 23 out of 45 girls worked with 22 idle. In all, a total of 78 adults and 57 children worked, though at least half the adults were on tasks in the workhouse. The total income earned by pauper labour that year was £208 7s. 6½d., on manufacturing tasks similar to those listed in 17 46.15 The hop industry in and around Canterbury was at its height in the mid- to late eighteenth century, and provided a major source of employment of in-poor paupers. In 17 51, the workhouse received an order for 340 pieces of hop bagging at 4s. 6d. a piece, and, in 1752, an order for 350, and in 1753 for 320. Paupers were hired out in parties for hop picking during the season. In 1751, Abraham Rye (a Guardian) hired 64 paupers for 18 days' hop picking (Sundays not counted) at a total cost of £23. 35 In July 1752, John Lade (then no longer a Guardian) contracted to have 82 persons for 18 days at a cost of £43. 36 In August 1783, paupers were hired out in groups of 4 lots of 8 persons for 18 days at prices from £5 5s. to £5 lOs. Similar hirings were noted in 1778.37 It would seem that the going rate for a hop picking pauper was about 8d. a day or 4s. a week; sufficient perhaps to pay for his food and maintenance. Other tasks outside the workhouse were undertaken on contract, using 34 John Brent (Junior), Canterbwy in the Olden Time, 179-80. 15 Alderman W. Gray, 1695-1784. Freeman 1721. Common Councillor 1724. Alderman 1748-81. Mayor 1748 and 1760. President of the Court of Guardians 1752 and eight other years. Alderman Gray left a manuscript notebook in which he recorded a variety of information about Canterbury, its government and his part in it. The Notebook is preserved in the Canterbury Cathedral Library as Supplementary MS No. 6. 35 CCQGB D2/2 6 August, 1751. 36 CCQGB D2/3 6 July, 1752. 37 CCQGB A/3 19 August, 1778. 161 F. H. PANTON the in-paupers. One such was a contract between the Court of Guardians and the Commissioners of the Pavement, whereby the Guardians undertook to scavenge and water the streets of Canterbury for the Commissioners. This arrangement, which lasted from the creation of the Pavement Commissioners in 1787, to 1842, when the Guardians' freedom of action began to be circumscribed by the central Commissioners of the Poor set up under the Amendment Act of 1834. (See later for further details of the relations between the Court and the Commissioners.) In September 1803, the Guardians felt it necessary to appoint an overseer to conduct the trade of the house, and William Griffiths was engaged at £1 ls. a week, plus 2s. 10d. in the £1 for all goods sold. His tenure was short-lived, and presumably unsatisfactory, since he was discharged on 1 December, 1804. Some idea of events during Griffiths' tenure of office may be obtained from the minutes of a Committee of Employ for that period. 38 From the records, it would seem that the Guardians made a major effort to create a spinning business at a time when spinning of wool and silk was in terminal decline in Canterbury. On 11 October, 1803, at a meeting chaired by Ald. Cyprian Bruce (then President) it was agreed to purchase half a pack of wool for clothing, half a pack of wool for mops, half a ton of hemp, seven gallons of rape oil, two pairs of woolcards, three woollen wheels, a linen reel and one mop reel. A bench for woolcombers was to be made. Later that month, Ann Lewis, a washer, was taken on as a spinner 'she being a very good one'. The 'long room over the water', called the men's room was to be whitewashed for the spinners. Instructions for keeping accounts and for paying wages were made, and it was ordered that children employed should be released four or five at a time, as the taskmaster could spare them, for schooling each day.39 In November 1803, Mr Griffiths reported that when working materials were to hand, he could employ twenty more boys and girls on mops. Twenty flax spinners were to work in the Great Hall, mop spinners in the room called Hammock and spinners of fine wool in the room over the water called Carpenters. In December 1803, it was reported that 22 38 CCQGB D3/14 October, 1803-September, 1804. 39 There is evidence that education of pauper children took second place to their employment in manufacture, though some attempt was made to import the rudiments of reading, writing and 'accounts'. In January 1754, it was ordered that all poor children should be given a year's education when better capable thereof, viz. boys at 13-14, girls at 15-16. However, this was amended to allow boys 13-14 to be employed in weaving, taking education 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. before work in winter, and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. after work in summer. See CCQGB D2/3 January, 1754. By the early 1800s, more regular schooling was provided. 162 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY children of the out-poor were in the employ of the house, with 18 children resident poor to be instructed in knitting. On 1st February, 1804, Griffiths reported the following as employed: three women, 15 resident children as linen spinners, six women, three resident children as spinners of wool, one man, two boys winders of yarn, five men beaters of hemp and yarn, two boys wheel-turners, 12 sack spinners (all boys), eight men woolcombers, one journeyman flax dresser, 25 children out-poor spinners and wheel-turners. In all, 90 persons (excluding one journeyman) were employed. At the end of February 1804, eight looms - three linen, two woollen and three sacking were in use with one loom unemployed. In that month and again in March, April and May, quantities of sacks, linen cloth, hindsey, woollen cloth, bed ticking and bed bottoms had been made and transferred to store. Quantities of hop bagging, packers and sacks were ordered to be offered for sale by auction in 17 lots on 27 August, 1804. No further detailed records of this manufacturing enterprise seem to be available until 1811. In that year, after the President and other Guardians had visited other workhouses doing manufacturing work, it was decided to establish manufacture of worsted sheeting and skirting, principally for supply to paupers.40 In June 1828, a report from a special Committee of Manufactory gave examples of articles made and sold to indicate which work might be advantageous to continue.41 Fifty-four yards of cloth had been sold at £1 1 ls. 6d., profit lOd.; 72 yards for £2 1 l s., profit 8s. 2d.; 40 sacks for £3 13s. 4d., profit 13s.; 40 yards for £3 5s. 4d., profit 10s. 3d.; six sacks for 15s. 6d., profit 2s. 9d. The Guardians were asked to decide on this sort of evidence, whether it was profitable to employ inmates on such manufacture or whether it would be better to leave them in idleness. In September 1830, a Select Committee reporting on the state of the workhouse gave the view that employment was highly beneficial to morals and industry. 'All who can work, should be employed from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Lady Day to Michaelmas, and from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Michaelmas to Lady Day'. The Committee, however, found that the superintendent of manufactory was too old at 82 to manage the work, and should be replaced by a working master. A larger profit was capable of being made but 'from long sufferance of idle habits there was much to do'. 42 In a second report,43 the same Select Committee observed, in reference 4° CCQGB D2/6 5 February, 1811. 41 CCQGB D2/8 3 June, 1828. 42 CCQGB D2/8 7 September, 1830. 43 Ibid. 163 F. H. PANTON to agricultural labourers reduced to poverty by low wages and unemployment, that one 'who is desirous of maintaining himself by his labour should have every encouragement'. The Committee proposed that a piece of their land called Beaux Herne in Harbledown should be allocated in parcels of one acre each to six agricultural labourers with the largest families and most worthy of encouragement. Six cottages should be built over the land, and let at 40s. an acre, Court to pay all rates for the cottages, at 5 per cent. A further six acres could be let to other labourers in smaller lots. The scheme should be supervised by the Agricultural Committee. In support of their proposition, the Select Committee observed that 'a mass of evil must be generated by compelling an honest and industrious man from the want of necessary encouragement, to become a pauper; he loses that independent feeling which enables him to rest on his own efforts, that feeling lost, he becomes careless and indifferent of the future, his family is neglected, and in the end he becomes a permanent pensioner on the industry of others ... as examples became clearly more numerous the peace and security of all may be endangered by this evil'. The Committee added that the recommendation, if adopted, would act as a stimulant to the parishes in the immediate neighbourhood which will have the effect of reducing rates and establishing a system 'fraught with good for all'. These sentiments and propositions seem to stem from the same analysis which later gave rise to the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, with its emphasis on preventing the able-bodied from becoming paupers and pensioners of the poor law system. However, in this case, positive action was proposed to tackle the problem, not simply a procedure which refused out-relief to the able-bodied. The Guardians accepted the recommendations, as far as surplus rents would allow, and, in August 1831, it was agreed that land at Beaux Herne should be reserved for employing the poor.44 However, no further reference to this scheme has been found in the existing Court records, and it may not have been implemented. FARMING OUT THE POOR- PRIVATISATION The very high expenditure on the poor in the late 1820s, early 1830s led the Guardians, in August 1833, to set up a committee to look into the practicability of farming out the maintenance of the poor on contract to 44 CCQGB D2/8 23 August, 1831. 164 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY a private company, as a means of reducing costs.45 It was estimated that the average cost of maintaining a pauper in the workhouse was 4s. Id. a week. Enquiries of other workhouses which had already been farmed out under contract showed some prospect of savings. At Maidstone, cost per head was 3s. 8d. a week; at St. Paul's, Deptford, 3s. lO½d., Lambeth 3s. l ld., Greenwich 3s. 8d. By privatization, Maidstone had achieved savings of over £1,000, Lambeth £3,000 and Greenwich nearly £7,000. The Guardians believed that their costs could be reduced to 3s. 8d. a head, giving a saving of nearly £300 a year, and if the contractor were empowered to set the able-bodied to work, there would be an average of 50 less in the house, with an additional saving of over £500. In October 1833, tenders were invited and Messrs Pillbrow and Carter's tender was chosen from among the four received. The contract was for three years, terminable after two years, given three months' notice. The terms of the contract were most detailed, running to 42 clauses. In effect, the contractor accepted total responsibility for the running of the workhouse, including the maintenance and care of the paupers, the running of the bridewell and the care and schooling of the Blue Coat Boys, subject to the overall control by the Guardians of admissions and discharges, and to inspection by the Guardians.46 To put the plan into effect, the workhouse had to increase the space available by renting a house adjoining. Another consequence was that the Master was paid off with a sum of £60. At the same time a new set of rules for the house was generated for the guidance of the contractor. Pillbrow's contract was extended until 1838, but in mid-contract he was forced to reduce his charges to three shillings and three farthings a head.47 In 1838, Mr Pringuer's tender for the contract was accepted, and recorded accounts show that he remained contractor until at least 1842. Payments to him were recorded as £141 19s. 8½d. for June 1841, £149 5s. 5½d. for July 1841, £150 18s. 8d. for August 1841, £137 17s. 6d. September 1841, £164 19s. 2½d. November 1841, £173 16s. lOd. December 1841, £182 9s. 2d. January 1842, £170 18s. lOd. March 1842, £160 14s. 6d. April 1842, a total of £1,603 for ten months.48 On this evidence it would seem that contractorisation for the workhouse succeeded in reducing costs significantly, probably down to something like £2,000 a year, from the £2,877 before farming out. Costs of maintaining the out-poor remained high, however, probably 45 CCQGB D2/8 6 August, 1833. 46 CCQGB D2/8 26 November, 1833. 47 CCQGB D2/9 6 October, 1835. 48 CCQGB D2/9 January-May, 1842. CCQGB D3/13 31 November-20 March, 1842. 165 F. H. PANTON somewhat greater than those for the in-poor. Some attempt had been made in the proposals of the Select Committee of 183044 to reorganise out-relief. Following the example of other poor law organisations throughout the country, it was proposed that half the out-relief should be in the form of bread (probably made in the workhouse) rather than money. Bread tickets would be issued, with collection at set hours. Additionally, the wages of removing officers were reduced, and they were paid in part on results. For instance, 2s. for each case of bastardy brought before the Guardians was to be allowed, whether by the removing officer or any other person - this 'should make the Removing officer more vigilant'. Such measures were clearly only skirting round the edges of the real problem, that of the increasing numbers of able-bodied persons thrown out of work or not earning a living wage, and therefore turning in large numbers to the Guardians for relief. BASTARDY Records of the Canterbury Guardians show that care of illegitimate children born to indigent single women was no small part of their regular business. A main aim was to ensure that the reputed father was apprehended, and forced to recompense the parish for care of the child. Under the bastardy laws existing throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a single woman pregnant with, or mother to, a child, would be encouraged or even forced to name the father. On her word alone he might then be apprehended and committed to gaol, unless he were prepared to enter into a recognisance to indemnify the parish against costs. The whole of any money mulcted in this way went to the parish; the mother saw only that allowance which the parish might be prepared to give.49 Amounts extracted from the father varied with the circumstances, and his relative wealth, and would have been the outcome of bargaining between the Guardians and the father. Nationwide in 1834, sums charged ranged from ls. to 7s. a week, with the average for one child at 2s. 6d. to 3s. in towns, and 2s. in the country. In most cases, negotiation of a once for all payment was preferred by the Guardians. The Canterbury relief rate for single mothers was somewhat low compared with the country-wide average or towns. In 1779, the going rate for out-poor was 44 CCQGB D2/8 23 August, 1831. 49 Report of H.M. Commissioners into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws 1834, 166-7. And also 6 Geo II c31 and 49 Geo III c68. 166 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY 5s. a week for four children, 4s. for three, 3s. for two and 2s. for one.50 Lump sum payments from fathers varied from £10 to £20 in the eighteenth century to £50 or even £100 in the early nineteenth century. While pursuit of alleged fathers of bastards through magistrates courts, and even to quarter sessions, would have been a time-consuming and expensive business, the Canterbury Guardians and parish overseers did not flinch from such action, or at least threat of it, nor from having the father committed to gaol until he was prepared to pay. Canterbury Sessions Court meetings in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries invariably included a number of bastardy cases for trial. Where the father had left Canterbury, the Guardians sometimes dispatched a representative to pursue him, to get him to pay his dues - again, an expensive and perhaps fruitless task. For example, in February 1778, the Guardians commissioned one of their number to go after Samuel Gatwoo, servant of an army officer at Northampton, allowing him 5 guineas plus expenses for his trouble.51 Again, in 1779, the Guardians clerk was sent to pursue John Wemyss to Worley Common. This effort obviously met with a rebuff, for in 1780, the Guardians wrote to General Pierson about the treatment their emissary had received and at the same time the clerk was authorised to begin legal action against John Wemyss and his sureties on two separate bonds for two bastards.52 The presence of a large contingent of soldiers in barracks in Canterbury, leaving behind, on posting away, wives and children, or bastards, unprovided for, must have been a constant source of worry to the Guardians. The (unpaid) parish overseers or constables were sometimes lax in their knowledge or pursuit of bastardy cases, and in that event, the Guardians could indict them for dereliction of duty. In April 1751, Thomas Gilpin, Constable Northgate, John Holmes, Constable Westgate, Walter Brett, Constable Newingate, and John Court, Borsholder Northgate, were indicted for neglect of duty in permitting Thomas Leet, convicted of being the father of a bastard and ordered to prison for not giving security for maintenance, to escape.53 Again, in September 1731, Samuel Johnson of St. Mildred's was committed for trial at the next sessions for breach of duty in not procuring a warrant for taking up Judith Hurler to swear who was the cause of her pregnancy.54 From time to time the Guardians employed people specifically to seek out pregnant 5° CCQGB A/3 4 April, 1979. 51 CCQGB A/2 16 February, 1778. 52 CCQGB A/3 17 August, 1780. 53 CCQGB D2/2 2 April, 1751. 54 CCQGB A/1 13 September, 1731. 167 F. H. PANTON unmarried women. In 1816, William Edwards was so employed, at 2s. 6d. an identification.55 The whole system of bastardy treatment was roundly attacked by the Poor Law Commissioners in 1835, following the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.56 They observed that the sending of bastardy cases from petty to quarter sessions was an expensive and uncertain remedy. Parish officers had represented to the Commissioners that since they were reasonably certain to lose by it, they did not pursue such a course. The Commissioners recommended repeal of the entire system of the parish pursuing the putative father. Another unwelcome facet of the system had been noted in 1834. This expressed the view that support for two or three bastards to one mother could be a source of profit to her. The extreme case of a widow with seven illegitimate children was quoted. She received 14s. a week support, whereas had she been a widow with seven legitimate children she would have received no more than 4s. to 5s. a week. The Commissioners also remarked that 'it was considered good speculation to marry a woman who can bring one or two bastards to her husband'.57 In the records of the meetings of the Court from 1731 to 1821, there are over 50 bastardy cases sufficiently difficult to have been brought to the attention of the full Court. From these, and from the above, we may infer that the Guardians took a great deal of trouble, often unsuccessfully, to uncover bastardy cases, to search out the father and to compel him to recompense the Guardians for their costs in supporting mother and child. SETTLEMENT The Act of 1727 gave the Canterbury Guardians the power to 'examine, search and see what poor Persons there are come into, inhabiting, or residing within the said Fourteen Parishes in this Act mentioned, and to cause the Churchwardens and Overseers of the said respective Parishes to complain to Two Justices of the Peace of the said City and County of Canterbury, in order to remove such Person or Persons as are likely to become chargeable, to the place of their respective settlements, as the Law requires, but always at the cost and charges of the said ss CCQGB D2/7 1 January, 1816. 56 First Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales 1835, 166-167. 57 Report of H.M. Commissioners into Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws 1834, 60. 168 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY Corporation ...' .T he Act further provided that if the churchwardens and overseers proved derelict of duty in this respect, they could be summoned before quarter sessions and fined not exceeding forty shillings. In effect, the fourteen parishes remained separate for the purposes of settlement, though any actions on settlements (and of bastardy) were for the Guardians to take, and pay for, acting with and through parish officials. Such a diffusion of authority was bound to give rise to problems of implementation, and the task of the Guardians was made more difficult by the fact that several districts of Canterbury were and remained outside the fourteen parishes and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Guardians. The Christchurch precincts, the archbishop's palace and the borough of Staplegate were examples of areas in Canterbury within the jurisdiction of the County of Kent. Persons whose settlement was within, say the borough of Staplegate, and who moved to a Canterbury parish were treated by the Canterbury Guardians as alien to their jurisdiction. In defence of their economic interests, they applied the laws of settlement rigorously, whether the dispute was with parishes outside, or areas inside, Canterbury. For instance, in 1776,58 an appeal was made against justices of Kent, who had authorised the movement of Edward Engeham, wife Sarah and two children from the precincts of the cathedral (in the county of Kent) to the parish of St. Mary Bredman. A reverse case occurred in 1778, when it was ordered that William Sutton be removed from St. Mildred's to the precincts. In 177959 James Lomas was removed from St. Mary Northgate to the borough of Staplegate and in 1782, John Atkinson was removed from St. Peter's to the precincts.60 Legal disputes between Poor Law authorities about settlement were frequently taken to quarter assizes for adjudication, despite the possible costs. Cases involving parishes outside but close to Canterbury may be noted. In 1777, proceedings were begun against William Gascoigne, his wife and family who had been removed to the vill of Wooden in the Isle of Thanet from St. Mary Northgate, but had subsequently returned to Northgate.61 In 1778, an appeal was made against the removal of John Silk from Thanington to St. Mary Bredin,62 and, in 1786, there was an appeal against the removal of John King and family from Westgate in Kent to Northgate.63 Cases further afield were obviously more difficult 58 CCQGB A/2 12 December, 1776. 59 CCQGB A/3 13 May, 1779. 6° CCQGB A/4 6 August, 1782. 61 CCQGB A/2 9 January, 1777. 62 CCQGB A/3 9 July, 1778. 63 CCQGB A/6 10 April, 1786. 169 F. H. PANTON and expensive. In July 1768, John Whitwell was paid £15 15s. for conveying William Stone and children to Thom in Somerset. 64 In 1791, an appeal was made against an order by Essex justices to remove the seven surviving children of John Wright, deceased, from Braintree to St. Andrew's.65 In general, the Guardians tried to solve settlement problems without recourse to quarter sessions, but each quarter session invariably was presented with a number of settlement actions or appeals to resolve. From time to time the Guardians initiated campaigns to seek out people in Canterbury without settlement certificates. As noted above, one such campaign in 1778/79 produced a list of 66 persons possibly illegally resident in the City. In 1729, a reward of 20 shillings was offered for information on who had brought vagrant women to Canterbury. EMIGRATION By the nineteenth century, subsidised emigration to America began to figure as an acceptable alternative to maintaining long-term paupers. In April 1830, £30 was paid to Mrs Brent to emigrate with her children to America; on 3 August, 1836, Mrs Twyman with her six children were to be sent there by the 'most economic means', and, in December 1836, Mrs Clackett was given £20 to take herself and three children to the U.S.A.66,61 THE CITY FATHERS AND THE GUARDIANS The effect of the Act of 1727 was to set up a Corporation in Canterbury separate from the Burghmote, with clearly defined legal powers, which included the power to levy rates, and with access to income at least as great, and in course of time much greater than, those of the Burghmote. In general, the two co-existed in harmony, but where their interests overlapped, acrimonious differences of view could occur, resulting even in legal action between them. The formal link between the two Corporations was through ex officio membership of the Court of Guardians by the Mayor, Recorder and those Aldermen who were JPs. However, the interest of the Mayor, Recorder 64 CCQGB D2/5 25 July, 1768. 65 CCQGB A/8 6 September, 1791. 66 CCQGB D2/8 12 April, 1830, 3 August, 1830. 67 CCQGB D2/9 30 December, 1836. 170 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY and Aldermen in the Guardians' affairs proceeded more from their legal duties as magistrates for the County of Canterbury than from their membership of the City Burghmote. They did not unduly dominate the Court's meetings. They attended the yearly Annual General Meeting in July, at which the President and officers of the Court were elected and remunerations fixed, but seldom appeared as a body at routine monthly meetings of the Court or at meetings of its Committees. From time to time an Alderman or the Mayor was elected President, but most often the President was chosen from among the 28 Guardians representing the fourteen Parishes.68 Poor rates to be levied by Court inside the City had to have the formal approval of City Magistrates (i.e. of the Mayor and Aldermen, or any two of them) and rates to be collected by the Court for, and handed over to, the County Stock (to defray the cost of justice within the County of Canterbury) had to be formally requested from the Guardians by the magistrates (again the Mayor and Aldermen through the Treasurer of the County Stock, also an Alderman). Committals to bridewell (run by the Guardians) could be by the magistrates. Also, as noted above, those poor law cases, such as bastardy, settlement or serious breaches of obligations to pay rates - which the Guardians could not resolve themselves - would be referred to the magistrates in session. This duality of interest of City magistrates seemed mostly not to cause problems, and indeed the two corporations would have found it difficult to disagree when the presidency for the time being was held by the mayor or one of the aldermen. Some differences of view are, however, recorded. In October 17 67, the Guardians obtained through the parish overseers a full list of tithes paid to persons in the fourteen parishes. There was obviously some problem in extracting rates on the tithes and the overseers in November 1767 were instructed to demand the last two years' rates of the clergy. In January 17 68, it appears that the magistrates were reluctant to sanction legal action against clergymen, since the Court decided to indemnify against counter-action those JPs signing warrants to distrain clergy for poor law cesses.69 Payments of rates collected for the County Stock raised, from time to time, questions in the minds of the Guardians, or at least in those Guardians representing parishes. In October 1816, Alderman Frend, Treasurer 68 From the extant records of the Court, Aldermen held the presidency in the years between 1728 and 1843: Aid. Tolputt 1749, Mayor Tolputt 1750, Aid. Gray nine times between 1752 and 1764, Aid. Plomer 1765, 1766, Aid. Stringer 1769, Mayor Moya 1780, Ald. Elwyn 1781, 1782, Aid. Brown 1809-14, Ald. Warren 1821. During these years, some 28 elected Guardians held the presidency, mostly for two or three consecutive years. 69 CCQGB D2/5 6 October, 1767, 23 November, 1767, 5 January, 1768. 171 F. H. PANTON of the County Stock, was asked for an account in writing of the Stock. No satisfactory answer was received, and on 8 February, 1819, a request for payment of £410 10s. to the County Stock was refused and the Treasurer was asked to publish his accounts. The Court claimed to be unacquainted with the legality of Ald. Frend's disbursements of money collected from them. The opinion of a barrister was sought, but is not recorded in the Court's minutes. However, as a reply from the magistrates, the Court received a statement from Mr Nutt, town clerk and clerk to the magistrates (and also clerk to the Court; the statement was addressed to himself!) merely repeating that on 11 January a County rate of 10d. amounting to £410 10s. was fixed and ordered by the magistrates. Rebuffed, the Court on 9 February rescinded its previous orders and the amount requested was paid. 70 The Court's uneasiness over paying over relatively large sums of money to the County Stock, to be disbursed for purposes of which the Court had little or no cognisance, flared up again in 1832, over payments by the County Stock for the constuction of a new City gaol. This had become a matter of public controversy, with some factions holding that the cost (some £3,500 in all) should have been borne by the Burghmote from its own resources, rather than from the rates raised for County Stock. The Guardians in August 1832 resolved that Mr Sandys be employed to draw a case for counsel's opinion on points of controversy. The questions to which Sandys should further formulate were: Under what existing law is the County of Canterbury liable to pay the expense of building a new City gaol? Is the County liable to pay the clerk of the market for returning the prices of corn? Is the County liable to pay the salary of the gaoler? Is the County liable for cleaning the City Guildhall? Is the County liable for repairs to the gaol? Is the County liable to pay counsel's fees for prosecutions? Is the County responsible for paying constables to attend sessions? Is the County liable to pay for offences under the Market Act? Are the members of the Corporation empowered by law to employ each other in doing work on the gaol and furnishing the various articles it requires? If ever this were lawful, would the trustees possess authority to audit and pass each of these accounts? And what powers of redress have the Guardians of the poor or individual ratepayers against overcharges on bills paid by magistrates?7 1 7° CCQGB D2/7 1 October, 1816, 2 February, 1819, 9 February, 1819. It was not until, at their sessions on 15 July, 1822, that the Canterbury magistrates ordered the treasurer of the County Stock to publish his accounts. See JQO 21 Canterbury Sessions 1800-1823, in the Canterbury Cathedral Library. 71 CCQGB D2/8 7 August, 1832. 172 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY At the same time, the receiver was ordered not to pay any further money to the County treasurer until further decision of the Court. However, on 6 September, 1832, this order was rescinded and the matter referred to an Extraordinary General Meeting of Court (requiring the signatures of at least seven Guardians to be called) convened for 17 September, 1832. At that meeting, it was decided that it was 'not expedient to order any case to be drawn up and presented to Counsel for opinion on the County Rate'. Nevertheless, the unease continued and a further E.G.M. on 15 November, 1832, ordered that 'on account of public dissatisfaction with the present irregular mode of levying and expending the County Rate, some change should without delay take place and for the purpose of ascertaining how such a change can effectually be accomplished they request the Magistrates to assemble with the Court at an Extraordinary General Meeting to be called for that purpose'. The magistrates responded to that invitation with a letter, which was considered at another E.G.M. convened on 26 November. The text was not recorded and no account of the discussion given. On 8 January, 1833, the magistrates' answer, refusing to accept an invitation to attend a meeting of Court, was received. The Guardians ordered that the differences between the two Courts respecting the county rate be inserted in the general court book. The magistrates had obviously succeeded in exerting pressure to nullify proposed action by Guardians, and to avert a formal confrontation on the issues between themselves and the other guardians representative of the parishes and, therefore, of ratepayers. On the other hand, the Guardians from the parishes had demonstrated a concern for the proper control of disbursement of ratepayers' money collected by the Court of Guardians. And, despite the opposition of the magistrates, the proposed action by Sandys proceeded (though probably not under the auspices of the Guardians), and he produced a trenchant pamphlet on the whole matter, which was the subject of great public debate.72 The question of where financial responsibility for law and order in Canterbury should rest was solved by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, which, inter alia, dissolved the Burghmote and constituted a more democratic council in its place. Responsibility for the establishment of a new, regular, paid police force, and the financing of law courts in the County and City of Canterbury was lodged with the council. They were authorised to collect a borough rate for these and other specific purposes 72 See P.H. Panton, 'Finances and Government of Canterbury, Early to Mid 19th Century', Arch. Cant., cxii (1993), 27-30, for a further account of this controversy, including a summary of Sandys' pamphlet on it. 173 F. H. PANTON through the Court of Guardians. The County Stock was therefore- discontinued and subsumed in the borough rate. On 10 June, 1836, the Guardians formally recognised that the 92nd Clause of the Municipal Corporations Act provided for the borough rate to be collected by them, and it was ordered that the receiver pay the borough rate in the same,"manner as the County rate heretofore.73 RELATIONS WITH THE PAVEMENT COMMISSIONERS Contacts between the Court of Guardians and the third Corporation in the City, the Commissioners of the Pavement, were largely restricted to a contract between the two under which the Guardians undertook to scavenge the streets for the Commissioners, using paupers for that purpose. Shortly after the Pavement Commissioners had been set up by Act of Parliament in 1787, the Guardians approved the appointment of !fhomas Ridout as scavenger, with Edward Hambrook, receiver, as his guarantor both to be indemnified by the Guardians and to act under their direction. A committee was appointed by the Guardians for that purpose.74 It would seem that the Guardians continued to supply that seryice for the next 50 years. In October 1837, the Guardians recorded their willingness to continue scavenging and watering the streets for the Pavement Commissioners, with the proviso that they could not 'subject themselves to superintendence or control of the managing committee'. 75 Two years later, in 1842, the Commissioners asked the Guardians to scrapl Northgate and North Lane (outside the walls of Canterbury, and therefore presumably an extension of the existing contract), but made clear their dissatisfaction with the service provided, complaining that the streets of the City were not kept sufficiently clean.76 The Guardians accepted the additional chore in May 1842, but later that year, in August, a Committee of Internal Management recommended to the Guardians that {arming implements and horses be sold by auction and 'scavenging the streets be relinquished'. 77 73 CCQGB D2/9 10 June, 1836. 74 CCQGB A/6 1 December, 1787, 1 January, 1788. 75 CCQGB D2/9 6 October, 1837. 76 CCQGB D2/9 3 March, 1842. 77 CCQGB D2/9 2 August, 1842. 174 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY IMPACT OF THE 1834 POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT In May 1834, the Guardians got up a petition against the proposed terms of the Poor Law Amendment Act, then pending, and resolved to circulate it to every mayor of every corporation in the kingdom (except London and Westminster) and to parish officers of every representative city, town and borough. They feared that, as drafted, the Act would encourage country parishes adjacent to towns to evade responsibility for their paupers, leading to a 'very unequal, ruinous increase in paupers in Cities and Towns', to the point where 'within a very few years country parishes will scarcely have a pauper to maintain'. The terms of the Act, it seems, would, as then drafted, have enabled individual parishes to refuse to join Unions, and to destroy or get rid of the existing accommodation they might have for their own paupers, relying on the guardians of neighbouring towns to look after them. These fears, certainly exaggerated and probably unfounded, were real enough to Canterbury Guardians for them to propose that the Act should enable all parishes within 3 miles of the City to be united with it for poor law purposes.78 There is no evidence that these representations significantly changed the drafting of the 1834 Amendment Act nor that, in the event, the 'ruinous' consequences predicted by the Guardians came to pass. However, though not immediately pressing on Canterbury, which had achieved a Union of parishes more than 100 years before the 1834 Amendment Act, in course of time the Act caused the authority of the Canterbury Guardians under the local act of 1727 /28 to be overtaken by and be subject to overriding direction from the 1834 Act. Poor law Commissioners were set up by central govenment to implement and control throughout England and Wales the purposes of the Act, whose main objects were to insist that able-bodied persons should not be given out-relief, that Unions of numbers of parishes should be formed, particularly in country areas, with the aim of bonding together to set up a common workhouse ( or Union building) and central administration, and that conditions in the Union building, though adequate and humane, should not be such as to encourage paupers to remain in there any longer than they could help. While the Act was effective in forcing parishes to band together in Unions, and in providing the Commissioners with sufficient powers to control those Unions, their powers over those existing Unions of parishes formed under local acts, such as at Canterbury, were relatively undefined. Guardians of some existing Unions, such as those at Chatham and Maidstone, consented to dissolution and re- 78 CCQGB D2/8 20 May, 1834. 175 F. H. PANTON establishment under the Commissioners and the 1834 Act. In these cases, however, charges of idleness of paupers, and of diet and conditions superior to that of working labourers, had been made against them, charges which were not then levelled against Canterbury. Nor were the Canterbury Guardians willing to be taken over by the Commissioners. In the early years after 1834, the Guardians seem to have proceeded much as before, though prudently with some regard to the main aims of the 1834 Act. Then, too, the Commissioners made no great effort to assert their authority. However, in May 1842, Court minutes record a petition to the Secretary of State, Sir James Graham, and the results of an interview with him. The petition argued that great hardship would be caused if the Act of 1727 /1728 were repealed, dissolving the Court of Guardians with its divers estates then producing £700 p.a. for the education, maintenance and putting out as apprentices at a premium, of the Blue Coat Boys. Graham replied that Canterbury would not be so affected, because it was already a Union. While this bland statement by Graham may have assured the continued existence of the Canterbury Court of Guardians, it did not clarify the degree to which the Court would be controlled by the central poor law Commissioners. Perhaps to forestall criticism of the way in which the Guardians ran their affairs, yet another report on internal management was prepared by a committee and put to the Court in August 1842.79•80 Recommendations were aimed at tightening up control and bookkeeping, particularly in relation to payments to the out-poor. The duties of the Relieving Officer were re-defined, and his room for manreuvre further restricted. It was stipulated that in every instance a portion (50 per cent) of out-relief should be in bread, by ticket. Farming implements and horses were to be sold, and the contract for scavenging the street to be relinquished. Weekly meetings on out-relief, of a small committee of Guardians, to a set agenda, and to which the Relieving Officer would report, were agreed. These moves would further diminish the assistance the Guardians might be giving to the able-bodied poor, in line with one of the main aims of the 1834 Amendment Act. It was also decided to dismiss the Master and Mistress and to advertise the posts. These changes did not silence those locally who believed that the better course would be to relinquish control to the Poor Law Commissioners. In August 1842, an Extraordinary General Meeting of Court was convened to discuss a motion to petition the Poor Law Commissioners to take the management of the poor of the City under their 79 CCQGB D2/9 22 May, 1842. 8° CCQGB D2/9 2 August, 1842. 176 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY control. The motion was effectively killed on a majority vote for an amendment to postpone consideration of the matter 'this day twelve month' .81 The amendment was supported by the mayor. Despite contrary pressure by the Poor Law Commissioners, the Guardians in September 1843 decided to continue farming out the maintenance of paupers and the workhouse by accepting a contractor's bid, and they so informed the Commissioners. By November 1843, the Commissioners had expressed their determination to introduce poor law regulation over the Court, and they asked for a meeting to discuss the matter. A meeting with Mr Hall, Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, took place on 17 November, 1843, at which he insisted that the cost of maintaining the poor was cheaper in other workhouses in Kent, and he criticised the amount of out-relief given. Court thanked him for 'the lucid and intelligible manner he explained the wishes and intentions of the Commissioners'. At this point, Messrs Hammond, the bankers, seeing the writing on the wall, requested an understanding that the repayment of the balance owing to them from the Guardians would be secured in the event that the affairs of the Court were placed in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners.82 The struggle for control finally ended when the Guardians obtained an authoritative legal opinion that the 1834 Amendment Act gave the Poor Law Commissioners the right to direct and control the running of Unions such as Canterbury's, set up under a local act. From 26 March, 1844, the Commissioners assumed control over the Canterbury Court of Guardians and its management of the poor of Canterbury, and the powers of the Court as a free-standing Corporation under a local Art of Parliament were effectively emasculated. A prime objective of the Commissioners was to establish a purpose-built Union in Canterbury, replacing the Poor Priests Hospital. The Ninth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners characterised the Poor Priests Hospital as 'old and inconvenient' and very unworthy of the City Guardians. A suitable site for the new Union was identified on elevated ground outside the City walls in the parish of St. Mary Bredin. After much discussion, many exchanges between the Commissioners and the Guardians, many changes of plan and considerable escalation of cost, a new workhouse to house up to 400 paupers was built at a final cost of £8,572 by October 1849. This large expenditure was borne by the Guardians on long-term mortgage with the poor rates as security.83 81 CCQGB D2/9 16 August, 1842. 82 CCQGB D2/9 7 November, 1843, 17 November, 1843, 21 November, 1843. 83 The story of the Guardians' struggle with the Commissioners is told in detail by R.A. Scott in his University of Kent at Canterbury thesis, 'Administration of the Poor Law in Canterbury under a Local Act of 1727 with particular reference to the years 1834-1852'. 177 F. H. PANTON The Poor Priests Hospital continued in the ownership of the Guardians and was let by them for £30 p.a. in the first instance as a police station. Subsequent lettings included a Roman catholic school (1880), a census team (1881-91), Gaskin, builders (1903) and the Buffs Museum (1961). In 1936, the main building received Ancient Monument Protection, and in 1980, after renovation, the City Council established a Heritage Museum in it. 84 THE END OF THE BLUE COAT SCHOOL The achievements and aspirations of the Blue Coat Boys School had never been particularly high, constituted as it was to teach boys from 13 to 15 years old sufficient of the rudiments of the three Rs to fit them for placing out in apprenticeships to tradesmen and craftsmen. It had certainly over the centuries kept up a steady supply of apprentices to Canterbury and further afield, probably educated to adequate standards for the purpose. The Guardians from 1728 onwards had fulfilled their obligations to run the school in an appropriate manner, using funds gained from the lands and property transferred to them for that purpose. They housed the boys separate from the paupers in the Poor Priests Hospital, gave them a separate and superior diet to the paupers and maintained a schoolmaster specifically for the school and allocated attendants to care for the boys' needs. When the time came to article boys out as apprentices, the Guardians provided the necessary funds and legal costs, and they continued to keep a fatherly eye on the boys during their apprenticeships. Nevertheless, the standard achieved in the schooling was sometimes criticised. In 1772, for instance, it was recorded that none of the boys taking part in the ceremony of beating the bounds that year could write. Then, by the early to mid-1800s, schooling for an apprenticeship had less point than in Georgian times, and there was pressure nationwide to bring secondary schooling within the range of far more children. The Blue Coat Boys School began to appear increasingly anachronistic. A country-wide Endowed Schools Commission in 1869, jointly with the Charity Commission (then 16 years old) reinterpreted and rearranged gifts and charities for the purpose of helping to create new secondary schools. The searchlight of enquiry fell on the three endowed schools in Canterbury - East Bridge Hospital School, Jesus Hospital School and the Blue Coat Boys School. The Guardians were asked their opinion 84 See Elizabeth Lewis, 'Poor Priests Hospital. Catalogue of Sources 1893-1930', Local History Section, County Library, Canterbury. 178 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY about 􀁝 working of Canterbury charities, and on whether they had any suggestions for making the Blue Coat School more useful. The local press had commented on surplus funds accruing to the Guardians and the Kentish Gazette advocated putting them towards supporting a larger school with more ambitious aims. At that time, of the £700 p.a. the Guardians received from rents of the P.P.H. lands and properties, only £160 p.a. went to support the Blue Coat School. In 1876, a committee of the town council and the Guardians was formed to consider 'the present state of the Blue Coat School' and to consider 'an alteration in expenditure of the funds and the preparation of some new scheme to be submitted to the Charity Commissioners'. It was argued that a new school should be housed in new premises for the poor and middle class of the City, using P.P.H. funds and with assistance from Jesus Hospital and other activities. The Guardians, resisting the pressure, as a last ditch defence recommended that 50 or more boys be educated with the surplus P.P.H. funds, but that the 16 Blue Coat Boys should continue to be educated, clothed and housed as before. Finally, an Assistant of the Charity Commissioners took evidence in Canterbury on 3 and 4 March, 1876, and gave his judgement for a new scheme for management of a new endowed school. Orders in Council on 27 November, 1878, and on 22 February, 1879, put the,;,scheme into effect. The Simon Langton School was endowed with £730 p.a. from the P.P.H. lands and property, £130 p.a. from the Jesus Hospital, with bequests from Elizabeth Lovejoy (1694), Dorothy Nixon (1729) and Daniel Decaufor (1832) yielding another £100 p.a. The Headmaster of the Blue Coat School, John Caplin, was compensated with £2)0 for loss of office, and the Blue Coat School closed on 27 March, 1879. The new Simon Langton School was to provide for 125 boys and 75 girls. The site of the school at Whitefriars was bought for £3,500 and the sale of P.P.H. property at Ickham raised £3,000 of this sum.85 Present: APPENDIX A Court of Guardians of the Poor First Meeting 1728 Edward Jacob, Mayor. William Crayford, Recorder. Anthony Oughton, William 85 See Lawrence Lyle and Joyce Frame, 'TO BE CONTINUED - A history of the First Hundred Years of the Simon Langton Schools, 1881-1951', K.C.C. Publication, Local History Section, County Library, Canterbury. 179 F. H. PANTON Botting, Moses Agor, Nicholas Howle, David Hall, Valentine lckin, Thomas Bullock, Thomas Shindler, Thomas Grey, Justices of the Peace; and Aldermen. Twenty-eight other inhabitants chosen by the parishes of the City. St. Martin's: William Chirrewigg. Alexander Steddy. St. George the Martyr: John Hardres. Richard Pembrook jun. St. Mary Bredin: Humphrey Packner. John Toker. St. Andrew's: Stephan Dunant. Christopher Crood. All Saints: George Lynch Dr. of Physik. Benjamin Le Grand. Holy Cross Westgate: Rev. Robert Nun. William Browning. St. Alphege: Abraham Le Grand. John Moore. St. Paul's: Richard Waddell. William Pembrook. St. Margaret's: John Whitfield. Thomas Hollingbury. St. Mildred's: Rest Homer. (Sam Fremoult in pencil.) St. Peter' s: Bradnox Brandon (Gent). William London. St. Mary Bredman: Edward Brown. Hercules Hills. St. Mary Northgate: Andrew Johnson. William Cook. St. Mary Magdalene: Roy Shrubsole. William Grey. John Hardres elected President Bradnox Brandon (Gent) elected Receiver 180 FINANCES AND GOVERNMENT OF CANTERBURY APPENDIX B Rate collection, 11 February, 1750/1751 Extracted from Rate Book, CC4GBT8/1 Parish Number of Highest amount Total collected ratepayers paid by ratepayer £ s. d. £ s. d. Holy Cross 25 16 0 6 12 3 St. Margaret's 118 4 15 6 40 1 0 St. Andrew 109 1 1 0 56 1 31 St. Peter 124 14 0 19 4 41 Fryers Rents 10 8 0 I 9 0 Out Dwellers 5 1 4 0 2 12 0 St. Mary Magdalene 80 1 2 0 25 2 6 St. George the Martyr 173 1 16 0 43 7 II Fryers Rents 7 18 0 2 12 0 All Saints 64 1 10 0 19 0 10½ St. Paul's (City) 185 3 0 0 9 2 0 St. Martin 36 4 10 0 St. Mary Bredman 71 1 10 0 20 9 3 St. Mildred 196 1 13 0 34 19 3 Out Dwellers 12 1 6 0 5 13 4 St. Mary Northgate 100 4 0 0 27 3 II½ Out Dwellers 61 2 7 0 29 14 6 St. Alphege 131 1 12 0 35 2 9 St. Paul (Kent) 174 27 10 0 86 18 6 St. Mary Bredin 72 17 0 Total ratepayers 1680 Total collected 527 11 8 181