rt’ («.3

1:ere 5 ti: 7rnd—r=7‘ 3; Bridge. A brief exploration of the village uill however reveal the existence
of  Lane.   from the ford by Little Bridge Place to a row of eight postwar houses
Tozzgside an old bridieway at the top. named Mill Terrace, and a 1960's development in the centre ‘
of the village off ‘Xesterri Avenue called Windmill Close. These names are virtually all that remain
to remind us of a once familiar landmark, Wl’1OS€ site now lies beneath one of the fuel storage tanks
on the corner of Mill lane and Union Road. The only building remaining associated with it is Mill
Cottage in Union Road, built (it is said, about 1730, but in fact more probably 1830) sideways on to
the road to give the miller a clear view of his workplace.

The first evidence for a corn mill at Bridge appears on the first detailed map of Kent issued by
Philip Syrnondson in 1596, but it may have been in existence of course long before that. Windmills
have been recorded in this country since the twelfth century. What is perhaps remarkable about
Symondson's mill is that it is plainly not visible from Mill Cottage, for it is placed near the top of
Side Hill, a quarter of a mile from the church, on the NE side of Bridge Hill. On a later map, in John
Harris's History of Kent of 1719, it is similarly positioned, and represented clearly as a post mill
(like Chillenden Mill), which is the oldest type of mill. It is not represented on the 1arge—scalc map
(2 inches to the mile) by Andrews, Dury and Herbert of 1769, but then, nor are any other mills in
Kent existing at that time. It reappears however on a map dating probably from 1825/6 in the 18th
edition of Paterson's Roads. Here it is again placed at the top of Side Hill, on the western side of the
ancient track from near Higham, which cut through the woodland and ran down into Patrixbourne,
very close, indeed, to the viewpoint chosen by Jan Siberechts for his panorama of Bifrons House
and Patrixboume of 1705-10, (a viewpoint now obliterated by the by-pass). It is reasonable to
suppose too that it was also adjacent to the ancient track that ran from the top of Keepers Hill in
Patrixbourne all along behind the woodland above Side Hill to Bridge Hill, a track that still exists
on the Patrixbourne side of the Bridge by-pass, but which was on the Bridge side stopped up in
1830. Thus it would not be wholly fanciful to imagine the painter seated within a convenient
distance of the mill, and the resulting View confirms one's sense that this is indeed a better site for a
windmill than that down in the valley, albeit on a small eminence, and closer to the village. The
Black Mill at Barham was after all quite some distance from that village.

The position of Bridge Mill prior to about 1820 is confirmed by the documentary evidence, which

‘also introduces us to some ofthe millers. The Kentish Gazette of 26-30 May 1786 reported that

On Saturday last was committed to St Dunstan's gaol. . . John Kent, of this city, miller,
charged on the oath of John Pilcher, of Bridge, miller and baker, with having stolen out

of his mill in the Parish of Patrixbourne, a bag, containing upwards of one hundred
weight of Wheaten flour. . .

Our first known miller is revealed. Mr Pilcher was not a young man in 1786, and could well have begun his

work forty or more years before that, for the Gazette shortly afterwards (13-17 April 1787) carried a small
advertisement:

Wanted, a man who understands the business of a MILLER and BAKER. . . He may
have constant work and good wages by applying to John Pilcher, at Bridge.
Eighteen months later Mr Pilcher was dead.

Wednesday last died in Bridger's Alms Houses, in this city, Mrs Pilcher, aged 94,

mother of the late Mr Pilcher, miller, of Bridge. (Gazette, 2-5 September 1788)
On 10-14 October of the same year an advertisement was placed, offering for sale furniture ‘of the
late Mr John Pilcher, Baker, at Bridge.’ Does this suggest he had already given up as miller? And
perhaps the Gazette gives a clue as to the identity of the man who applied for work in 1786:

Tuesday was married at Boxley . . . Mr George Cleggett, miller and baker at Bridge, to
Miss Frances Parks, at Boxley (8 July 1791).

Mr Cleggett's business was evidently prosperous:


‘W}L\TED At: agjrennee 1: 2 £11111-57 and Baker ~ a stout healthy lad, of a creditable

faintly’. Apply L: George Cleggett. Bridge I; 12 August 791).
‘With rnore hands available. Mr C leggett was able to expand:

C leggett. miller and baker. Bridge, takes this opportunity of returning his most grateful

acknowledgements to the neighbouring gentry and inhabitants of Bridge for the many

past favours received in the above branches: at the same time begs leave to inform

them. he has just opened a corn-Chandler's shop, and hopes by the strictest attention to

every article of his business, he shall be able to merit their future as well as past

favours. Beans, Peas and Barley, to be sold ready-ground. N.B. Gentlemen who keep

dogs may be supplied with oatmeal, in any quantity, on the most reasonable terms.

(8 October 1791)
Shortly after this (26 October 1791) we find a further advertisement for 'a sober miller’, presumably
because of the expansion of business, rather than because his apprentice had been too stout or
healthy in his indulgence.

By the early years of the following century the mill had been taken over by John F agg, who in the
Gazette of 18 July 1808 was in his turn advertising for 'a journeyman wind-miller‘. Later that same
year we find explicit reference to the location of the mill:

MILL ROBBED, Whereas in the night of Wednesday last, the 30m November, the Mill

belonging to John Fagg, on Bridge Hill, was broke open by forcing the hinges of the

door, apparently with an iron crow or chisel, and a Quantity of flour with TWO SACKS

marked ‘J .Fagg, Bridge Mill‘ were stolen thereout and traced for about half a mile across

the fields, leading towards Canterbury by Patrixbourne. Whoever can give information

so that the offender or offenders may be convicted, shall receive a reward of TWENTY

POUNDS from the aforesaid John Fagg (2 December 1808).
Such a substantial reward underlines both the value of flour, and the vulnerability of mills.

The final chapter in the history of this mill is tantalisingly recorded by the Gazette of 7 July 1818:

To be sold. . . a CORN WINDMILL, driving two pair of stones, and machinery
complete and a storehouse near. . . both in good repair, as the same are standing . . . on a
piece of land at Bridge Hill . . . now in the occupation of Mr John Fagg, miller. The said
corn windmill and storehouse must be taken down and removed by the purchaser, on or
before the sixth April next . . .

The reason for the strict deadline is unclear, and as has been mentioned above, the 1826 map still
marks the old location, so the mill may not have been removed so swiftly; alternatively, the change
may not yet have been picked up. The sequence of events in the 1820's remains mysterious. The
period around 1820-1830 was however one of great alteration in the village as a whole. The great
houses round about were changing hands. The Taylors who had owned Bifrons (and much else
besides) sold the house to Lord Conyngham in January 1830. Edward Taylor the younger had
married the heiress of Bourne, Louisa Beckingham, in 1802, and after her father's death sold that
property too to Lord Conyngham. Charles de Secondat, Baron Montesquieu, who had been living at
Oswalds in Bishopsbourne since his escape from the French Revolution and who had bought Bridge
Hill House (originally owned by the Rev. John Beckingham) for £1500 in 1793, died there in 1824.
The property was then taken by the Rev. Edward Gregory, who immediately entered upon major
improvements, including the stopping-up of the road mentioned earlier. This most conveniently
coincided with the realignment of Bridge Hill north—eastwards and the grading of its slope under the
Turnpike Acts, which was taking place in 1829-30, along with a similar treatment of Town Hill on
the Canterbury side of the village (hence the very steep slope at the entrance to Dering Road). A
few years earlier, in 1816/17, the principal road from Bridge to Patrixbourne, which ran right past
the front of Bifrons, was stopped up part way along (Laundry Lane, now Conyngham Lane), and a
new road built (Bekesbourne Road) around the perimeter of Edward Taylor's land. Pressure of
traffic was being noticed even at this early date.


111 the  of  1:»: '.9—I‘«1] J ‘.8311. at the same time as Bifrons was sold, an agreement was
dravtn up between Edward Lord Skelmersdale. Sir Herbert Taylor (by now Lieutenant General) and
Edward Taylor. late of Bifrons on one side, and James Ashenden, farmer and William Sankey,
surgeon of Bridge on the other. for the sale to Ashenden for £200 of

All that piece of land called or known by the name of the Three Corner Meadow

containing 2 acres, 2 roods 7 perches formerly in tenure of Henry Cosoer, afterwards of

Charles Howard, late of said James Ashenden and then of Joseph Gardener and William

Fagg the younger . . . abutting to a bridle way leading from the village of Bridge to a

place called Linsey Bottom towards the north, to the highway or road leading from the

village of Bridge to a place called Street End towards the west or south-west, and to

lands formerly of the heirs of Mr Forde and then belonging to the Rev Barham [RH

Barham, alias Thomas Ingoldsby, 1788-1845, who at the time owned Bridge Farm in

the High Street, demolished in 1962] towards the south-east, which said piece was

theretofore used with and formed part of a farm called the Upper Pett Farm late in

occupation of Richard Garner deceased, and was theretofore described as all that . . . in

occupation of Henry Crosoer . . . And also all that corn windmill and other the buildings

then lately erected and built on said land by and at the whole costs and expense of said

James Ashenden [though in a later document, of 21 August 1878, Thomas Ashenden is

said to have been the builder]. (East Kent Archive Centre ref. U438 T27)
By 1830 therefore a mill existed, though it had only lately been built, on the site in the village. Was
this the same mill that had been demolished elsewhere a few years earlier? Both had two pairs of
stones, but this was a smock mill, albeit quite a small one. The mill on Bridge Hill was, by the time
of its demolition, unlikely still to have been the post—mill of the 17”‘ century. Nor was wholesale
removal of a mill impossible, although the terrain between Bridge Hill and Three Corner Meadow
was difficult:

Many . . . Kentish mills were moved . . . from one part of a village to another or into an

adjoining parish, often to take advantage of the prevailing south-westerly winds from a

more exposed position. . . . Often, to remove a mill, the octagonal body was divided up

into eight sections by sawing down the eight cant (corner) posts; then, in re-erection,

these sections would be bolted together again. One of the original cant posts bolted

together in this way can still be seen in Ripple Mill. . . Frequently, however, the body of

the mill was conveyed intact, and one can imagine that difficulties sometimes arose in

the conveyance of such a huge structure. . . . (W.ColeS Finch, p.63)
The day after James Ashenden bought the site from the Taylors, he turned a tidy profit by leasing
the mill and land to Ann and Sarah Garner for 500 years at a price of £400 (plus ten shillings to Dr
Sankey). Ann Garner died on 8 March 1831 however, and the land was passed to Charles Edward
Howard, a veterinary surgeon. Ashenden died in September 1832, and the following year Sarah
Garner sold out to Thomas Sladden, who, having bought out Ashenden's children in turn sold the
mill to Thomas and Benjamin Johnson (2 March 1832) for £650 - a profit of £250 therefore.
Curiously, according to the 1841 census, Thomas Johnson is recorded as residing at 45 Union Street
(in Bridge? - the Old Mill House today is number 41, but that includes many modern houses).
Thomas ran the mill until his death in 1856. His long tenure, of some 24 years evidently left a mark
on the village, for he was still remembered nearly a century later:

Local history has it that the figure of the dusty miller was a familiar sight in the village,

for his practice was to deliver flour to his customers personally, his method of transport

being the back of a donkey. One presumes, of course, that he loaded the donkey with his

Sacks of flour and he himself led the animal through the village. (Folkestone Herald, 25

March 1933)
When Johnson died the mill seems to have been worked for a while by Gilbert Huxster, but in 1859
the miller was George Fryer, who was Benjamin J ohnson’s executor and brother-in-law. Fryer kept
the mill running for a further twenty years or so, while Benjamin seems to have been in charge of
Barton Mill in Canterbury.


In 1865 Benjamin Johnson died (11 March), and a couple of years later his widow, Mary Ann, took
out a mortgage from one George Adams (?a cooper) for £500, presumably to buy back F ryer's
interest, yet in 1874 Fryer also paid Adams £500 to recover ownership. After Mary Ann's death in
1875 (15 March) however ownership of the whole property was conveyed (January 1877) to the
Johnson children Susanna, Martha Francis, Ellen Eliza, Emily and John Gilbert, with Fryer
remaining as tenant, In the following year (21 August 1878) the Johnsons sold the whole property
to the Rt. Hon Arthur Baron Wrottesley (Baron Wrottesley, Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire) and
Theodore Henry Brinckman, Bart. for the princely sum of £1000. The property had once more
reverted to aristocratic ownership!

At this point the 24 year old John Gilbert Johnson was prospering, for he was the employer of four
men at Barton Mill, and of a maid at home, where his eldest sister Susanna now ran the household
(Wrottesley and Brinckman on the other hand employed 32 servants between them).

On 10 April 1879 the 65 year old Fryer gave up his tenancy of the mill, which was valued then at
just £98 10s 10d - notably including a sack chain 50 feet long and two iron pinions to the stones -
and retired with his wife Mary Ann (a daughter of Thomas J ohnson) a few yards down the hill to
number 5 Union Road. Some months later (October 1880) John Johnson transferred the tenancy to
William White, who in his turn moved into the Mill House with his wife Rebecca and thirteen year
old daughter Emily. William had been born in 1829, and was therefore by now well into middle
age. The fact that his daughter was born in Bridge suggests that Mr White had already been working
at Bridge Mill for some years. At this point the mill was judged to be worth no more than £65 9s 6d,
including the 'lifts etc. for sweeps . . .and three old sails’. The reference to (canvas) sails suggests
that the mill at this time was fitted with 'common sweeps’. Later photographs suggest that these
were subsequently modernised as ‘patent sweeps’, with automatic adjustment of the shutters,
depending on wind speed.

By the last decade of the century industrial milling was offering stiff competition to the old trade,
and Mr White endeavoured to upgrade the mill with the addition of a steam—engine to assist the
wind. This was however no more than a short-term solution, and when the mill was taken over by
William Manwaring in 1900 he endeavoured to improve productivity further by installing a
Blackstone oil engine in an outside store to run an additional pair of stones. The inevitable could not
be put off for much longer though, and in 1907 wind-power was abandoned. A long period of slow
decay set in as first the sweeps were removed and then the body of the mill demoted to serve merely
as a general storehouse. The mill probably ceased work grinding corn by whatever means sometime
during or just after the first world war. Mr Manwaring moved on to become the owner of one of the
last remaining working windmills in the country (before their recent revival as a 'heritage' industry)
at Willesborough. The last journeyman ever to have worked at Bridge Mill was remembered (in
1954) as one A. Pegden.

By 1933 when the Lemar family replaced Mr and Mrs Charlie Hollands in the Mill House the mill
site was being used as a coal yard, an outlying depot of HE Bumiston, a Canterburyicoal merchant,
and Mr GF Lemar was employed to expand the local coal trade. His daughter Gladys still (2000)
resides at 41 Union Road, the Mill House, though the coal yard in its turn has been replaced by the
storage tanks of Messrs Corralls liquid fuel depot. The one remaining relic of the mill itself is a
rnillstone in the front porch of the Mill House.

Early in 1933 the remains of the mill were described by the correspondent of T he F olkestone
Herald:

The tower of Bridge Mill is covered with tarred sheeting. It therefore has a sombre
aspect and is not as picturesque as some of our old derelicts. It is, in fact, rather a sorry
spectacle, with two sweeps missing and only the midlings remaining of the other two.
The stage. . . has vanished entirely, and the fantail has also disappeared. The body of
the mill. however. is fairly sound. and there are two floors of brickwork beneath the
ti eather-boarded structure. (25 March 1933)
XL‘ .' Heisman. reponing the state of affairs in June of the same year, relates:


/‘ \

The midling has been cut  at ine end of the cheek pieces, the cap reboarded and

creosoted. The back of the Cap has been cut off short and boarded up, while the tower

has also been repaired. Although the cap looks a bit strange, I am glad that repairs have

been carried out since the mill was getting into a bad state. I believe it is now used as a

store. OX‘ Coles Finch, p. 313)
The mill survived, decaying gradually, through the second world war and beyond, until at last the
end came, witnessed by the late Mr CP Davies. On Friday 15 October 1954 four men arrived to
commence demolition. By midday on Wednesday 20”‘ they had, with the aid of a crane, reduced the
mill to its unusually tall, two—storey tapering brick base - tall perhaps to compensate for its
relatively low-lying position.

There remained on the site at the time of my visit the cast iron windshaft 11'4" long,

canisters 9" by 1'21/2", tapering from top to centre thus >. Brake wheel wooden, clasp

armed, wood geared, cant 1'2" deep, cogs 3" pitch, 3 5/8" face. Brake - wood; curb —

wood; iron truck wheels. Upright shaft - in two parts; upper part iron, carrying iron

wallower, with wood ring to drive sack hoist. Wallower had four arms, cogs 3" pitch, 4"

face. Lower part, upright shaft wooden, octagonal in section, spur wheel wooden, clasp

armed, 11/2" pitch, 3" face. (CP Davies, MS notes)
The major part of the mill gear was thus still in place and well-preserved. Even the body
might have been saved if it had survived another 15 years or so. But an age which
allowed the destruction of Bridge Farm had no time for an old windmill.

MM Raraty
©1 1/03/00

The mill in working condition before 1910 © Crown Copyright. NMR


H

IX:THE ESTABLIShE;jf $52 EARLY ALE:I:S:Z;___n _3 B»
_i__r_ ..

NEW PC-OB LA‘:-o~' III :52 .::__._u; $5-23?

Miss J. A. Hun:

THE NEW POOH 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 best 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 1854 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 se1f~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 of pauperism (2). A

The New Poor Lawvmw 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 1854 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 Commissioners.
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


108.

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 full 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 reforming authority (5).

For thirteen years between l854 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 uniform-
ity in poor law administration or the abolition of outdoor relief. During
the 1840's they both formally permitted a considerable degree of outdoor
relief, even to the able-bodied, and relaxed their supervision of local
administration. Chadwick, after 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. l847
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 fou ht 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 l865 the entire cQst 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
o’ the Board of Guardians of the Bridge Poor Law Union, of which there are

Twenty-on scanning the years from 1835 to 1930. They can be consulted in

the Sounty Archives Izzice in Eaidstone. Entered in these books were the


109.

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. Intermittently 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
iorkhouse.

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
P2 A ril 1855, "by order and by declaration of the Poor Law Commissioners
for sngland and Wales dated 27 March, 1835" (9). It was held at the
Hhite 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, George Gipps
Esq., and Robert Ballard-Johnstone Esq. There were nineteen Parish
Guardians: (10)

'1 ‘U

Name Parish
Richard Brice Bridge
John Bushell Ickham
Henry Collard Patrixbourne
John Sankey Lower Hardres
Jain Marsh Hood Kingston
Stephen Fuller Harbledown
Stephen Sambill Waltham
I22: E:va‘d Upper Hardres
Cad: Ea. 3

“vs” Bishcpsbourne
1 Maynard Fordwich

--,——,.-‘J
. _.e _

w
9 >


110.

Name Parish
Thomas Byng Wickham
Thomas Sladden Adisham
Edward Collard Stodmarsh
Richard Peckham Bekesbourne
Denne Denne Littlebourne
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 ofBekesbourne
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 annnm.

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 14th 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 lllsby was
appointed Receiving Officer for the 2nd District. The twenty one
parishes were apportioned to the two districts as follows:

1st District 2nd District
Bridge .Nackington
Womenswold Upper Hardres
Barham Lower Hardres
Kingston Petham
Patrixbourne Waltham
Bishopsbourne Thanington
Adisham Harbledown
Bekesbourne Westgate
Littlebourne Fordwich
Ickham

Wickham

Stodmarsh

Four districts were created for purposes of medical assistance:

lst District 2nd District 2rd District 4th District
Bridge Adisham Nackington Harbledown
Womenswold Bekesbourne Upper Hardres Fordwich
Barham Li ttlebourne Petham Thanineton
Kingston Ickham Lower Hardres westgate
Bishopsbourne Wickham Waltham .
Patrixbourne Stodmarsh

The subiect of a Workhouse was also discussed at the first meeting.
’‘ was agreeih 3;:fec: :: the approval of the Poor Law Commissioners, to
técviie ;:c::£d; -E; " GO able—bodied paupers. A
;m,ni::ee 355 ; "ab1e site for the Workhouse,

 


111.

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 offered to the local
doctor for caring for the sick poor. In July 1855 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 Con ngham (15),
was bought for £257. 105. from Lord Albert Conyngham (14 . Having
located and purchased a site, the Guardians through the medium of the
Canterbury newspapers invited builders to tender for constructing the e
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. Cozenss 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 1855 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).
. and Mrs. Weeks resigned their appointments towards the end of
cember 1835 (20) before the workhouse officially opened, thereby forcing
the Guardians to find a new Master and Matron. Early in 1856 Thomas
and Maria Cobb were appointed Master and Matron of the Bridge Union
icrkhouse at annual salaries of respectively £80 and £20 (21).

A schoolmistress was appointed at a salary of £52 per annum, while
Jenn Adams as the first porter received wages of lO/— a week (22).
Spiritual needs were provided by a Workhouse Chaplain (23), while a
medical officer was paid 950 per annum to attend on the sick in the
Ior'scuse.

By the time the Wcrkhouse opened its doors the following domestic

5 had been er“aged (24 .

Secs.

I
\n _ u ,1
(,1; ..
pl tn
. I‘ in n
«I» dig
In H is |4v\u (I)
H) Li.
\rI
I \,,r-J
\_J’l
I
C)
O
O
‘A

 

1;, _§;; 5 _ 41:39 for Wards No. 7 to No. 15
:‘-~', !:s., agsi E - To give her attendance to the Boys.
Ts’-~—— 1—~ —- = — i: give her attendance to the Girls

3
it
E
+:


ll2.

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
Littlebourne Poorhouse (25). On 25 February 1836 the Bridge Guardians
decided to seek authority to sell the Littlebourne Workhouse (26), which
was the same Thursday when paupers from Barham and Bishopsbourne in
Elham Workhouse moved into the Bridge Workhouse (27).

ms LAYOUT on THE} wommouss (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:

H To No. 7 inclusive = Girls under 16 years of age.

Upper Wards g
To No. 15 inclusive = Old Women and Bedridden Women.

To No. 22 inclusive = Boys under 15 years of age.

Lower Wards g
) To No. 30 inclusive = Ab1e—bodied Women.

On the North Side of the Workhouse:
Upper Wards - Old Men.
Lower Wards — Able—bodied men and boys 15 years of age and above.

Permission had to be sou ht 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 l847 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. 83. 9d. (50). 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. l5s.l%d.

2 L835, involving all the Chairmen
-  Enions under the chairmanship of
t are cozmon diet for all Union

, - ~Q,- «z—\.
. .4-r:.E‘. A-..._. *\/V-/r.

 


113.

For the Able—Bcdied: Men and Women

Breakfast and Supper. QBread and cheese or butter - 6 oz. of
bread for men, 5 oz. for women with 1 oz. of cheese of % oz. of
butter.

Dinner. Two days - Suet Puddings and vegetables — 1 lb. of pudding
for men, LO 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 l 02. 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 Officer.
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<fi'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
lawfully chargeable to the said parishes" (52). Bridge had to pay
£27, as against Barham paying the most at £55 and S odmarsh 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/-
For each child 1 —
For single men 2/6d.

At the 1855 July meeting of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen Sir Francis Head
expressed the following views on the payment of out—relief (33):

"any iixed scale of relief is directly hostile to the
principle of the Poor Law Amendment Act. No pauper should
be abTe to safely calculate the amount of relief he should
receive ad ‘has se‘ store by it. Instead it Should


ll4.

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 lO/—
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 “xpenditure
on poor relief by each parish over the previous three years after
deducting expenses for emigration (54):

£

Adisham 288
Barham 660
Bekesbourne 122
Bishopsbourne 365
Bridge 175
Chartham 884
Fordwich 109
Upper Hardres 258
Lower Hardres 261
Ickham 594
Kingston 180
Littlebourne 528
Harbledown 496
Nackington 302
Petham 485
Patrixbourne 259
Stodmarsh l2O
Thanington 404
Walthmn 731
westgate 458
wickham 714
Womenswold 101

Total 8,432

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 expendi-
ture on poor relief during the first quarter of l856 (55):

‘ **—*"‘*’ in the first quarter of ...

- "1 4. “ .. ..
‘. ‘Goa; Cfiao -- .... ‘_='a-_=—

... £275. 13:. ::.


115.

2. Total cost of out—relief in the first quarter of ...
... £765. l9s. O%d.

Plus 3 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:

1. In—relief of £21. 7s. 10d.
2. Out—relief of £91. lls. 5d.
3. Establishment of £50. ls. 6%d.

Had these costs also continued then the total cost of poor relief in
Bridge would have exceeded £200 for l836. Initially higher costs were
involved 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:

1. In—relief of £27. 8s. 9d.
2. Out-relief of £16. 178. 7d.
3. Establishment of £5. 28. 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. 1%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 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 (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
arcse out of disagreements over the payment of Medical Officers. They

. ' ~ r t r w +a= ->~ 3 1* Law Unions in East Kent as to whether
sognt iniormation $rGm .n- otner ioci


 

116.

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 12/— for each attendance
on the outdoor poor and l4/— 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). ln 1847 a cheque for
£168. Os. lOd. 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. 11d. (45).

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 givento 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 11th September the sum of £14. 11s. Ed. 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 functions in other directions can also be seen
in the Guardians’ minutes. From 1856 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 Commissionerstofind 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,
nd that there had been particular progress in the education of the
* e children (50). 0: 29 April 1847 the Guardians considered

—~a-I-n

lunatic fro: -n:er ;a-i_es to the County Asylum at Barming

   


COICLUSIO§

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 admininistration 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 condemnation 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.


,\,\,\,\_/\,\,\,\/\/\,x/\/x/\/\/xxx/\/\/\/\/\,—\/\ /\/\/\r\/\/\/X/\/\/N/W/'\/\/\/N/-\/‘N/W

118.

FOOTNOTES

213 M. E. Rose, The Relief of'Povertv 1854-1914 (1972), 8.
'Ibid., 8. .

(5% Ibid., 11.

Ibid., 11.

(5) M. Bruce, The Coming of the Welfare State (1961), 105.
I. Anstruther, The Scandal of the Andover Workhouse (1975), 155.
Bruce, op, cit., 117.

Rose, 0 . cit., 42.

Minutes of Bridge Board of Guardians, 22 April 1855.
Ibid., 22 April 1855.

Ibid., 28 April 1855.

Ibid., 28 April 1855.

Ibid., 7th May 1855.

Ibid., 6 August 1835.

Ibid., 27 May 1855.

Ibid., 25 February 1856.

Ibid., 20 August 1855.

1
>
)
)
)
)
)
)
g lQ;g., 10 September 1855.
1
)
1
)
1

Ibid., 17 September 1855.
Ibid., 27 December 1855.
Ibid., 7 January 1856.
Ibid., 28 January 1856.
Ibid., 17 November 1856.
Ibid., 10 December 1856.
Ibid., 28 January 1856.
Ibid., 25 February 1856.
Ibid., 18 February 1856.

f\)f\)f\)f\)f\)7\)!\)T\)f-J}-JFJF-41-‘!-—‘|-'|—‘l-4}-J/\/\/\/K

) Ibid., 10 December 1856.
) Ibid., 11 February 1856.
g Ibid., 1 April 1847.
Ibid., 9 July 1855.
) Ibid., 21 May 1855.
3 Ibid., 9 July 1855.
Ibid., 21 November 1855.
) Ibid., 25 February 1856.
) Ibid., 14 Ju1y 1856.
) Ibid., 5 November 1856.
; Ibid., 3 November 1856.

Ibid., 27 February 1840.
) Ibid., 27 February 1840.
) Ibid., 5 March 1841.
) Ibid., 12 March 1847.
) Ibid., 9 April 1847
) Ibid., 27 February 1840.
) Ibid., 11 September 1840.
% Ibid., 1 December 1856.

Ibid., 2 January 1840.
) Ibid., 11 September 1840.
) 1bid., 5 March 1840.
) Ibid., 14 March 1842.
) Zbid., 29 April 1847.

\n\n.hJ‘.\..(h.b.¥>J>s.1>-$>.D-b\N\N\N\N\N\N\.N\N\N\NT\)l\3