THE ESTABLISHMENT AND EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF THE
NEW POOR LAW IN THE BRIDGE UNION

Miss J. A. Nunn

THE NEW POOR LAW

Any study of the New Poor Law must first encompass a description of the Poor Law Amendment Act of
1834, which laid down the principles governing the treatment of the poor for the rest of the nineteenth
century. Prior to 1834 there was no national system of poor relief. Instead different parts of the country
administered different kinds of workhouse or provided various payments of cash or kind, which
supplemented the low incomes of the poor. The most famous type of outdoor relief was the
‘Speenhamland System’. As pauperism and outdoor-relief increased so too did poor rates. It was alleged
that the Speenhamland payments encouraged laziness and were a positive disincentive to work. For these
reasons it was thought advisable to devise a new and national system of poor relief.

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 abolished outdoor relief to the able-bodied, who on applying for
relief were to be offered maintenance in a workhouse where their lives would be regulated and made less
comfortable than had they chosen to stay outside and fend for themselves (1). This principle of ‘less
eligibility‘ had the attraction of being a self-acting test of destitution. Only those persons who were
genuinely in dire need would accept the workhouse rather than starvation, particularly since on entering
the workhouse they lost all the rights and privileges they were entitled to in the outside world. Those who
were not in such straits would prefer to remain independent and thus avoid contracting the morally
‘ wasting disease ofpauperism (2).

The New Poor Law was seen as a positive solution to an increasing problem of pauperism, which would
work wonders for the moral character of the working man, and reduce poor rates, since it would be
cheaper to administer than the old systems of outdoor relief. For these reasons the Government accepted
the principles of the New Poor Law even though they involved a greater degree of bureaucratic
centralisation than would have been acceptable to them under normal circumstances. Under the 1834 act
overall responsibility for the poor law passed into the hands of three Poor Law Commissioners at
Somerset House, whose rulings were transmitted to Boards of Guardians in different areas by Assistant
Poor Law C ommissioners. The country was divided up into Poor Law Unions, for each of which a Board
of Guardians was appointed with complete control of local administration. Each Poor Law Union was
composed of several parishes. Boards varied in terms of administrative detail and in how they interpreted
the legislation of 1834. Some stuck to the letter of the Poor Law Amendment Act, while others proved to
be more flexible. Boards of Guardians were elected annually and each Guardian represented a constituent
Parish within his Poor Law Union.

The implementation of the New Poor Law was not as uniform as its promoters had hoped for. For a few
years several Boards of Guardians in Northern Counties merely administered the Registration Act of 1836
(3), and even when they were persuaded to assume responsibility for the poor law in place of the parish
authorities they were allowed to continue the payment of outdoor relief to the able-bodied. Having
permitted such a concession, the central authority experienced difficulty in withdrawing it. Moreover the
workhouse test was never enforced in the industrialised Unions of Lancashire and the West Riding and
Boards of Guardians even ignored the stipulation that able-bodied male applicants for relief be subjected to
some form of task work. They demanded instead that their Guardians be given fiill discretion to relieve
their poor as they thought fit, so that outdoor relief to the able-bodied continued, and even took the form of


allowances in aid of inadequate earnings ( 4). Initially the central body lacked the power to enforce anyone
to do anything, and yet much was achieved prior to the first great administrative change of 1847, whereby a
new Poor Law Board replaced the three Poor Law Commissioners as a governing and ministerial rather
than a refomiing authority (5).

For thirteen years between 1834 and 1847 the three Poor Law Commissioners, with Edwin Chadwick as
their secretary administered the early years of the New Poor Law, but under constant pressure from
Parliament and from hostile agitation in the industrial areas they failed to achieve national uniformity in
poor law administration or the abolition of outdoor relief. During the 1840s they both formally permitted a
considerable degree of outdoor relief, even to the able-bodied, and relaxed their supervision of local
administration. Chadwick, alter a number of quarrels, increasingly turned his attention to the sanitary
problems raised by his report of 1842, and from 1847 was no longer involved in poor law administration.
1847 also produced a major scandal surrounding the Andover Workhouse, where paupers who had been so
badly fed on being set to work on grinding bones for fertiliser fought for any scraps of food which still
clung to the half-rotten bones (6). This case exposed a slackening of control from the centre and promoted a
parliamentary storm out of which the Poor Law Board emerged as a minor government department. Under
a new Act, which was passed at the same time, an inspectorate was established and some improvements in
workhouse conditions were promised (7).

Inadequate levels of outdoor and indoor relief have been blamed on the meanness of Boards of Guardians
who, it is alleged, cared more for the rates than the poor under their control. Given a failure to reform the
rating system in 1834, some of this parsimony is understandable. Prior to 1865 each parish remained
responsible for the cost of relieving its own paupers, and until 1861 the contribution of each parish to the
common expenses of the Union was assessed on the basis of its relief expenditure and not its rateable value;
in other words, on its poverty rather than its property. Parishes with large working class populations
experienced great difficulties in collecting poor rates in periods of trade depression, and so were unable to
meet the financial demands imposed upon them by their Boards of Guardians, who, in turn found their
financial resources dwindling at times when calls upon them were at their greatest. Under the Union
Chargeability Act of 1865 the entire cost of poor relief was placed on the Union, rather than on the parish,
thereby redressing an unequal burden between rich and poor parishes within the same Union (8).

The Bridge Poor Law Union in comparison with more extreme examples was a model union. While it did

not adhere strictly to the principles of the Poor Law Amendment Act, it was certainly more co-operative
than many unions in the North of England.

THE MINUTE BOOKS OF THE BRIDGE GUARDIANS

The main historical source for this chapter exists in the minute books of the Board of Guardians of the
Bridge Poor Law Union, of which there are twenty-one spanning the years from 1835 to 1930. They can be
consulted in the County Archives Office in Maidstone. Entered in these books were the weekly meetings,
decisions and reports of the Bridge Board of Guardians, The books themselves are very large measuring
approximately eighteen inches in length and ten inches in width. One single volume can contain entries for
three years. They are all beautifully written in fine copperplate hand-writing.

The procedure at each meeting followed the normal pattern of any committee meeting, commencing with a
list of those Guardians who were present. Normally the Guardians turned their attention firstly to the
weekly financial accounts, as submitted by the two Receiving Officers of the Bridge Union, which usually
showed how much had been paid in Out Relief over the previous week. Items discussed thereafter varied


from one meeting to another, but might include the acceptance or rejection of tenders from local tradesmen.
who competed with each other in supplying provisions and other necessities to the Workhouse; petitions for
out-relief from paupers who resided in the Union; and matters of daily routine in the running of the
Workhouse, such as new appointments, salaries, the diets of inmates and new pauper admissions. Queries
on any point of administration were sent to the Poor Law Commissioners.

The minute books provide a clear and lengthy account of the day to day running of the Bridge Poor Law
Union. They also yield much valuable and useful information in such areas as the quarterly cost of poor
relief, or the cost of poor relief for individual parishes. Unfortunately, however, there are gaps in this sort
of information, which therefore cannot be followed through on a year by year basis. With respect to Bridge
itself the Minute books portray the parish and village as one part of the Poor Law Union. Interrnittently
figures appear which show Bridge's share of the poor rate, or the numbers of paupers from this particular
parish who were receiving outdoor relief or staying in the Workhouse.

Despite gaps in information, lack of consistency and. problems of interpreting other people's handwriting,
those minute books which have been consulted have proved to be an interesting and informative source.

THE.BRIDGE POOR LAW UNION AND THE FIRST MEETING OF THE GUARDIANS

The first meeting of the Bridge Union Board of Guardians was held on 22 April 1835, "by order and by
declaration of the Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales dated 27 March, 1835" (9). It was
held at the White Horse Inn in Bridge. The Guardians were joined by Sir Francis Head, as Assistant Poor
Law Commissioner for the East Kent Area, and by the following Ex Officio-Guardians: the Rev. C.
Hughes-Hallett [of Higham], George Gipps Esq. [of Howletts], and Robert Ballard-Johnstone Esq.

There were nineteen Parish Guardians: (10)

Name Parish

Richard Brice Bridge

John Bushell Ickham

Henry Collard Patrixboume
John Sankey Lower Hardres
John Marsh Hood Kingston

Stephen Fuller Harbledown
Stephen Gambill Waltham

John Howard Upper Hardres
John Harvey Bishopsboume
Nathaniel Maynard Fordwich
Thomas Byng Wickham
Thomas Sladden Adisham
Edward Collard Stodmarsh
Richard Peckham Bekesboume
Denne Denne Littleboume
Henry Mount Nackington
Robert Lathe Thanington
Benjamin Harrison Womenswold
Robert Owann Westgate.

There were two guardians who were absent and they represented Barham and Petham. Thus the Bridge
Poor Law Union was established on the basis of twenty-one parishes. The first meeting was largely


concerned with settling the administration of the Union. Richard Peckham of Bekesboume was elected
Chairman and Nathaniel Maynard of Fordwich was elected Deputy Chairman. It was resolved that
meetings should be held every Thursday morning at eleven o'clock at the White Horse Inn in Bridge.
Herbert Collard was elected Clerk of the Union at a salary, to be recommended to the Poor Law
Commissioners, of £40 per annum.

The Union was divided into two districts, each of which had one Receiving Officer. Captain Samuel
Beachcroft, who was a half pay Officer of the 14"’ Regiment, was recommended as the Receiving Officer
for the first district at a salary of £50 per annum which had also to be recommended to the Poor Law
Commissioners. Henry Illsby was appointed Receiving Officer for the 2nd District. The twenty one
parishes were apportioned to the two districts as follows:

lst District 2nd District
Bridge Nackington
Womenswold Upper Hardres
Barham Lower Hardres
Kingston Petham
Patrixboume Waltham
Bishopsboume Thanington
Adisham Harbledown
Bekesboume Westgate
Littleboume Fordwich
Ickhan

Wickham

Stodmarsh

Four districts were created for purposes of medical assistance:

lst District 2nd District 3rd District 4th District
Bridge Adisham Nackington Harbledown
Womenswold Bekesboume Upper Hardres F ordwich
Barham Littleboume Petham Thanington
Kingston Ickham Lower Hardres Westgate
Bishopsboume Wickham Waltham

Patrixboume Stodmarsh

The subject of a Workhouse was also discussed at the first meeting. It was agreed, subject to the approval
of the Poor Law Commissioners, to provide accommodation for no more than 500 able-bodied paupers. A
committee was established to find a suitable site for the Workhouse, composed of Mr. Brice (representing
Bridge), Mr. Maynard, Mr. Lathe, Mr. Peckham, and Mr. Denne.

Administrative arrangements were finalised at subsequent meetings, Mr. D. Denne was appointed
Treasurer to the Union and Richard Pilcher was appointed Auditor (11). £150 per annum was ofiered to
the local doctor for caring for the sick poor. In July 1835 the Guardians accepted Sir Francis Head's
request that the Parish of Chartham should join the Bridge Poor Law Union, which was thereby extended to
twenty-two parishes, surrounding Canterbury as shown by the parallel lines on the attached map, which has
been taken from G. H. Garrad, A Survey of the Agriculture of Kent (1954).


THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE WORKHOUSE: THE BUILDING.

The Bridge Union Board of Guardians, who resolved almost immediately to build a workhouse, set up a
committee to find a suitable site within one mile of Bridge which contained an acre of ground (12). The
site selected adjoined the turnpike road from Bridge to Canterbury. The necessary land, which belonged to
the Marchioness of Conyngham (13), was bought for £23 7. 10s. from Lord Al.bert Conyngham (14).
Having located and purchased a site, the Guardians through the medium of the Canterbury newspapers
invited builders to tender for constructing the Workhouse. A surveyor was appointed and the tender of Mr.
T. F. Cozens, a Canterbury builder, was accepted for £4,376 (15). The construction of a Union
Workhouse at Bridge was financed by a £5,000 loan from the Exchequer (16).

STAFF APPOINTMENTS

Within nine months of accepting Mr. Cozen's tender the Workhouse was ready to admit its first inmates by
February 1836. Already a Master for the Workhouse had been appointed. An advertisement which
appeared in the newspapers during August 1835 offered a salary of £80 per annum (17). Applicants whose
names were short-listed were interviewed at the White Horse, together with their wives (18). John Weeks
and his wife were appointed as the first Master and Matron of the Bridge Union Workhouse at a salary of
£80 per annum, exclusive of rent, candles and living (19). Mr. and Mrs. Weeks resigned their
appointments towards the end of December 1835 (20) before the workhouse officially opened, thereby
forcing the Guardians to find a new Master and Matron. Early in 1836 Thomas and Maria Cobb were
appointed Master and Matron of the Bridge Union Workhouse at annual salaries of respectively £80 and
£20 (21).

A ‘schoolmistress was appointed at a salary of £32 per annum, while John Adams as the first porter
received wages of IO/- a week (22). Spiritual needs were provided by a Workhouse Chaplain (23), while
medical officer was paid £50 per annum to attend on the sick in the Workhouse. -

By the time the Workhouse opened its doors the following domestic staff had been engaged (24).

Laurance, Sarah, aged 35 - Cook

Morgan, Mary, aged 32 - Cook

Breasley, Mary, aged 37 - Cook

Brice, Sarah, aged 48 - Nurse for Wards No. 7 to No. 15
Spain, Mrs, aged 29 - To give her attendance to the Boys.
Holness, Ann, aged 23 - To give her attendance to the Girls.

Thus the Workhouse began its life with a minimum staff of twelve persons, eight of whom were women,
and over half of whom were domestic staff.

THE INMATES

The Workhouse as constructed initially was intended to house 200 inmates, though it contained fewer than
that number in its early stages. To start with only one hundred iron bedsteads were required. Inmates
arrived from already established Workhouses, such as the Littleboume Poorhouse (25). On 25 February
I836 the Bridge Guardians decided to seek authority to sell the Littleboume Workhouse (26), which was


the same Thursday when paupers from Barham and Bishopsboume in Elham Workhouse moved into the
Bridge Workhouse (27).

THE LAYOUT OF THE WORKHOUSE (28)

Probationary and waiting wards were situated below and next to the Committee Room. The Workhouse on
its south and north sides contained upper and lower wards, viz:

On the South Side of the Workhouse:

Upper Wards To No. 7 inclusive Girls under 16 years of age.
To No. 15 inclusive Old Women and Bedridden Women.
Lower Wards To No. 22 inclusive Boys under 13 years of age.
To No. 30 inclusive Able-bodied Women.

On the North Side of the Workhouse:
Upper Wards Old Men.
Lower Wards Able-bodied men and boys 13 years of age and above.

Permission had to be sought from the Poor Law Commissioners for two old couples to sleep together (29)
but this was strictly against the rules of the Poor Law Commission until after 1847 when some concessions
were made.

The Guardians‘ minute books contain few figures relating to numbers of paupers in the Workhouse, but
during the first quarter of 1847 there were nineteen paupers from Bridge itself in the Workhouse, whose
maintenance cost £27. 85. 9d. (30). During the same three months fifteen paupers in Bridge had received
outdoor relief at a total cost of £16. 17s. 7d. In comparison with the other parishes in the Union Bridge
was about average. Chartham, on the other hand, was well above average, having had twenty-eight
paupers in the Workhouse during the same period at a total cost of £45. 12s. 6d. In the granting to outdoor
relief Chartham was much above average with ninety-seven paupers receiving outdoor relief at a total cost
of£58. 15s1 1/2d.

THE 1NMATES' DIET

At a meeting which was held in 1835, involving all the Chairmen and Vice-Chaimien of the East Kent
Unions under the chairmanship of Sir Francis Head, it was agreed to adopt one common diet for all Union
Workhouses and Poorhouses throughout East Kent (31):

For the Able-Bodied: Men and Women

Brea/tffizst and Supper. Bread and cheese or butter - 6 oz. of bread for men, 5 oz. for women with 1 oz. of
cheese or 1/2 oz. of butter.


Dinner. Two days - Suet Puddings and vegetables - I lb. of pudding for men, 10 oz. for women.
One day - Meat pudding with vegetables - 1 lb. of pudding for men and 10 oz. for women. Four
days - Bread and Cheese - 7 oz. of bread and 1 oz. of cheese.

For Old People
The same as for the able-bodied plus 1 oz. of tea and milk for breakfast and supper.

For Children

Bread and milk for breakfast and supper and such proportions of the dinner diet for the able-
bodied as the Board of Guardians shall decide.

For the Sick
Whatsoever be ordered for them by the Medical Oflicer.

Dietary alterations which were made subsequently included giving male inmates who worked hard

a daily pint of beer, while the breakfast diet was changed from bread and cheese to gruel.
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE BOARD OF GUARDIANS AND HOW THEY EXTENDED
THEIR FUNCTIONS
It was immediately agreed by the Board of Guardians that the various parishes making up the Bridge Union
had to meet the running costs of the union, in "such proportion of the general expenses of the union as is
lawfiilly chargeable to the said parishes" (32). Bridge had to pay £27, as against Barham paying the most
at £53 and Stodmarsh the least at only £6. Since the average was £22, Bridge paid something over the
average.

The Guardians also quickly agreed on the following scales of weekly outdoor relief:

Amount without earnings

For a married man and wife 5/-
F or each child 1/-
For single men 2/6d.

At the 1835 July meeting of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen Sir Francis Head expressed the following views
on the payment of out-relief (33):

"any fixed scale of relief is directly hostile to the principle of the Poor Law Amendment,
Act. No pauper should be able to safely calculate the amount of relief he should receive and
thus set store by it. Instead it should fluctuate so much that he could never calculate what he
was to receive and therefore come to realise he had no certain support - nothing on which he
could safely rely but his own industry and his own providence".

It was agreed that the eleven unions of East Kent should act as uniformly as possible. Outdoor relief was
fixed at sums beyond which it was not to be extended under any circumstances:


Amount per week

For a man. wife and six children 10/-
For a man and wife 5/-

Outdoor relief was made still less attractive when it was decided that the maximum payment to old people
should be 2/6d. per week.

Sir Francis Head further ruled that parishes within the Bridge Union had to allocate five per cent of their
average yearly poor law expenditure towards the administrative costs of the Union, for which purpose a
report was compiled showing the annual average Expenditure on poor relief by each parish over the
previous three years after deducting expenses for emigration (34):

Adisham 288
Barha,m 660
Bekesboume l22
Bishopsboume 365
Bridge 1 75
Chartham 884
Fordwich 109
Upper Hardres 25 8
Lower Hardres ' 261
lckham 594
Kingston 1 80
Littleboume 528
Harbledown 496
Nackington 302
Petham 483
Patrixboume 259
Stodmarsh 120
Thanington 404
Waltham 73 1
Westgate 45 8
Wickham 714
Womenswold l 0 1
Total 8 .492

Bridge's share of administrative costs was £8. 15s. Compared with several other parishes, Bridge's poor
law expenditure had been very low.

Due to the establishment of the Workhouse there was a higher expenditure on poor relief during the first
quarter of 1836 (35):

1. Total cost of in-reliefin the first quarter of  £275. 15s. 3d.
2. Total cost of out-reliefin the first quarter of  £763. 195. O 3/4d.


Plus 3. Establishment charges of...  £l.459. 11s. 3d.

1-lad these costs continued at this level for the whole year, then total poor relief expenditure would have
exceeded £10,000, which would have been more than the £8,492 average of the previous three years. The
three items of expenditure as far as Bridge was concerned were:

1. In-relief of £21. 7s. 10d.
2. Out-reliefof.-£21. 11s. 5d.
3. Establishment of £30 ls. 6 3/4d.

Had these costs also continued then the total cost of poor relief in Bridge would have exceeded £200 for
1836. Initially higher costs were involved in implementing the 1834 Poor Law Act with the result that poor
law expenditure increased considerably during the first year following the establishment of the New Poor
Law in Bridge. Such high levels of expenditure, however, did not continue. By 1847 the total cost for the
first quarter for Bridge was at a much lower level and was calculated as follows:

1. In-relieef of £27. 8s. 9d.
2. Out-reliefof£l6. 17s. 7d.
3. Establishment of £5. 2s. l.d.

Lower outdoor relief and establishment costs existed alongside a higher expenditure involved in maintaining
those paupers who had entered the Workhouse. These trends were repeated for other parishes within the
Bridge Union.

The Guardians maintained a tight control over expenditure. Anything supplied to the Workhouse was
subject to competitive tenders. The Receiving Officers in reporting weekly to the Board stated how much
money had been spent on outdoor relief. Usually this amounted to about £45, except on those occasions
when they had to pay for the treatment of lunatics, as on 9 April, 1840, when a weekly expenditure of £72.
7s. 0 l/2d. was reported. The corresponding expenditures for the previous week ending on 2 April were
£41. 6s. 1 l/2d., and for the following week ending on 16 April, £41. 65. 0 l/2d.

Initially the Guardians experienced difficulties in collecting the parochial poor rates. In 1836 several
parishes refused to acknowledge and pay the Guardians’ appointed Collector (36). After continuous trouble
throughout that year the Board set up a committee, consisting of five of its members who were to examine
and report on the best method of collecting the Parish rates within the Bridge Union (37). Richard Brice
from Bridge was elected to this committee. The Guardians in addition requested the Poor Law authorities
to send an explanatory letter to the troublesome parishes conceming the collector's right to the Parish Rate
(38). Subsequently on 27 February 1840 the Board of Guardians allowed Parish Officers to excuse
paupers from paying the Poor Rate (39).

Another financial problem which the Guardians had to face in 1840 arose out of disagreements over the
payment of Medical OH-icers. They sought information from the other Poor Law Unions in East Kent as to
whether and how much they paid their Medical Officers (40). The Guardians were facing criticism from
Mr. Nix who had been a Medical Officer to the Union since its formation. In 1840 he was continually
complaining of underpayment, but was finally satisfied in 1841 with a salary of £50 a year for attending
the workhouse, plus l2/- for each attendance on the outdoor poor and 14/- for each midwifery case (41).
As time progressed, so Boards of Guardians’ functions were extended and their financial affairs became
more complicated. In 1847 Bridge Union became responsible for collecting those county rates which
were due from within its boundaries and had also to pay the county clerk of the peace whatever sums


were owing for judicial administration throughout its area (42). In 1847 a cheque for £168. 05. 10d.
was paid over to Mr. Mercer, the County Treasurer, as the amount of county rate due from the parishes
within the Union. Bridge's share of this was £9. 19s. 7d., but Chartham had most to pay at £19. 55
lld.,(43).

The Guardians had many demands on their purse other than normal poor relief payments. Occasionally
they authorised grants to families to enable them to emigrate, as on 27 February 1840, when "the
sanction of the Board was given to the Parish Officers of Upper Hardres to advance the sum of £5 to
Thomas Hobb's wife and child of that parish for the purpose of their emigrating to Australia" (44).
Later in that year on llth September the sum of £ l4. l ls. 3d. was granted to Thomas Fairways and his
family of Chartham for their emigration to New Zealand (45).

Payments were sometimes made to other Unions for having incurred expenditure on a Bridge Union
pauper. Whenever such requests were received the Bridge Guardians usually paid promptly, as on 1
December 1836 "to the Faversham Union for the upkeep, for twenty-six weeks, of a child belonging to
the Parish of Barham" (46).

Extensions of ftmctions in other directions can also be seen in the Guardians’ minutes. From 1836
onwards they were responsible for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. They apprenticed
boys to employers outside the area, so that a Canterbury sweep, for instance, was allowed to have
apprentice boys in 1840 (47). On 11 September 1840 they agreed to vaccinate all the children who
required vaccination within the Bridge Union (48).

There was a wide range to the matters discussed and decisions taken by the Bridge Board of Guardians.
This overall conclusion can be supported from their minute books during the 1840's. On 5 March 1840
' the Clerk to the Board of Guardians was requested to write to the Poor Law Commissioners to find out

the correct procedure "towards Pregnant Unmarried Women requesting to lye-in in the Workhouse". and
also whether such women who appeared on a second occasion should be punished (49). At the same.
time it was also decided that all bastards, over seven years of age, who applied for relief, would be
ordered into the Workhouse.

The Union Chaplain reported to the Board of Guardians on 14 March 1842 that the internal discipline
of inmates was generally satisfactory, and that there had been particular progress in the education of the
Workhouse children (50). On 29 April 1847 the Guardians considered moving a lunatic from Upper
Hardres to the County Asylum at Barming Heath, near Maidstone (51).

CONCLUSION

Even from this brief study of the early years of the administration of the Bridge Poor Law Union, it is
possible to advance several conclusions. The Guardians were very conscientious in executing their duties.
They were not particularly hard or unkind in their administration of poor relief, yet this is a charge which is
commonly thrown at Victorian Boards of Guardians. Although they were careful over financial matters,
they were not always tight-fisted and did help those in genuine need. Costs of poor relief were not always
reduced at least in the short-term. Despite conderrmation of outdoor relief such payments to the able-bodied
poor continued within the Bridge Union, alongside other types of out-relief such as funeral expenses,
clothing grants and medical aid. Within the Bridge Union the parish of Bridge appears as a village having
but a small number of paupers and an average poor-relief expenditure.


FOOTNOTES

(1) M. E. Rose, The Re1iefofPovertv 1834-1914 (1972), 8.
(2)  3-
(3)  11
(4)  111
(5) M. Bruce, The Coming ofthe Welfare State (1961), 103.
(6) I. Anstruther, The Scandal of the Andover Workhouse (1973), 133.
(7) Bruce, OP cit., 117.
(8 Rose, op. cit., 42.
(9} Minutes of Bridge Board of Guardians, 22 April 1835,
(10) Ibid., 22 April 1835.
(11) 28 April 1835.
(12)  28 April 1835.
(13)  7th May 1835.
(14)  6 August 1835.
(15) jgfln 27 May 1835.
(16)  25 February 1836.
(17) lbid, 20 August 1835.
(18)  10 September 1835.
(19)  17 September 1835.
(20  27 December 1835.
(2l} Ibid., 7 January 1836.

 

(22) Ibid, 28 January 1836.

(23) 111$ 17 November 1836.
(24)  10 December 1836.
(25)  28 January 1836.
(26 ll_)i_d_., 25 February 1836.
(27)  18 February 1836.
(28) fl)_ic_1., 10 December 1836.
(29)  11 February 1836.
(30) 1_bi_d. 1 April 1847.

(31) flagl, 9 July 1835.

(32) Ibid. 21 May 1835.

(33) Ibid., ,9 July 1835.

(34) big, 21 November 1835.
(35) Ibid.', 25 February 1836.
(36)  14 July 1836.

(37) &i_d_., 3 November 1836.
(38) Ibid., 3 November 1836.
(39) mg, 27 February 1840.
(40) I_b_igl_., 27 February 1840.
(41)  5 March 1841

(42)  12 March 1847
(43)  9 April 1847

(44)  27 February 1840.
(45) 31¢, 11 September 1840.
(46) mg, 1 December 1836.


"L178! I!1dV 62 ‘pm
‘Z1781 qoww 171 "pm
01781 Ixoww 9 “W11

'0178I19Q1“91d9S II ‘Tfi

‘om Kwnuvr z ‘Wi