115.
2. Total cost of out-relief in the first quarter of ...
- ... £765. 19s. 02d.
Plus 5 Establishment charges of ...
... £1,459. lls. 5d.
Had 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:
l. In-relief of £21. Ts. 10d.
2. Out-relief of £21. lls. 5d.
5. Establishment of £50. ls. age.
Had these costs also continued then the total cost of poor relief in
Bridge would have exceeded £200 for 1856. Initially higher costs were
yinvolved in implementing the 1854 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:
l. In-relief of £27. 8s. 9d.
2. Out-relief of £16. 17s. 7d.
5, Establishment of £5. 2s. ld.
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. O%d.
was reported. The corresponding expenditures for the previous week
ending on 2 April were £41. 6s. l%d., and for the following week ending on
16 April, £41. 6s. O%d.
Initially the Guardians experienced difficulties in collecting the
parochial poor rates. In 1856 several parishes refused to acknowledge
and pay the Guardians’ appointed Collector (56). 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 (57). 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
concerning the collector's right to the Parish Rate (58). Subsequently
on 27 February 1840 the Board of Guardians allowed Parish Officers to
excuse paupers from paying the Poor Rate (59).
Another financial problem which the Guardians had to face in 1840
arose out of disagreements over the payment of Medical Officers. They
sought information from the other Poor Law Unions in East Kent as to whether