t 9 3 ?‘<<" ; a‘ F i 5 . 5 i 2 _._j r V. § ; 3 I t 1 ’ , I r 43 BRIDGE AS POETRAYED IN HISTORICAL SOURCES PRIOR TC 1939 S21#: Aspects sf the Economic and Social Histnny of Kent Group Research Project 1978 Preface Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter CONTENTS I 2 III : VII : VIII: IX : XI : i The Development of Bridge before 1840 — John Sleeman 1 Landownership and Farming in Bridge during the 1840's: The Tithe Map and Apportionment Miss Kim Davies 15 Bridge: As Portrayed by Census Material ‘l851—l871: An Introduction — Mrs. Zofia Wells 25 Bridge: As Portrayed by Census Material 1851-1871:" Family Structure and Household Size — Miss K. S. C. Chandler 27 Bridge as Portrayed by Census Material, 1851—187l: Occupational Structure ~ Mrs. Zofia Wells 43 Bridge: As Portrayed by Census Material, 1851-1871: The Origins by Birth of its Inhabitants — Martin Morris 52 Bridge as Recorded in Trade Directories, 1839-1882 — Brian Phillips 57 Bridge as Presented in Local Newspapers between 1840 and 1878 — Robert A. Scott 72 The Establishment and Early Administration of the New Poor Law in the Bridge Union — Miss J. A. Nunn 107 The Funeral of a Bridge Fireman — April 1910 — Mrs. P. Reilly 119 Bridge: A Portrait of the Village between the Wars — Crispin Whiting. V 121 NON—PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS 1. Sir A. Braems, extract from Parish Records. Map relating to apportionments in Bridge. The apportionments have been taken from the original tithe map and are superimposed on the most recent Ordnance Survey map covering Bridge. Map of railway development in Kent taken from F. W. Jessup Kent Histor Illustrated (2nd Ed., Maidstone, 19735, 53. Map showing a five-mile radius from Bridge and the western boundary of East Kent. This is based on the map compiled and drawn by Jill M. Boorman in Marcus Crouch, The Cream of Kent (Sheerness, 1973), 8 - 9. Two maps showing those parishes in 1851 and 1871 within five miles of Bridge in which 10 or more village residents had been born. This is based on the map showing parishes in the County of Kent taken from G. H. Garrad, A Survey of the Agriculture of Kent(1954), 219. Rules and regulations for allotment tenants on the Bifrons Estate, Bridge. Parishes included within the Bridge Poor Law Union in July 1855. This is based on the map showing parishes in the County of Kent taken from Garrad, op.cit., 219. Facing page 20 45 52 56 94 111 PREFACE Bidge as Portrayed in Historical Sources Prior to 1959 represents the fifth unpublished Group Research Iroject, submitted under the general guidance of two project directors, as part of S214: Aspects of the Economic and Social History of Kent, which is one of the Part II Courses in Economic and Social History, run over two terms in.the Faculty of Social Sciences. The two project directors were: Mrs. Penny Reilly who, as a resident of Tyler Hill, is a member of the Blean, Hackington and Tyler Hill Society. Mr. John Whyman, lecturer in Economic and Social History at the University of Kent at Canterbury. Following the success of Tyler Hill: The Changing Scene Since 1890 (1976) it was decided during 1977/78 to study aspects of the economic and social development of Bridge as portrayed in historical sources, particularly of the mid-nineteenth century. The chapter titles, apart from the introductory and concluding chapters, indicate which sources have been researched in detail; namely the tithe map and apportionment of 1840; the census enumerators' books 1851-1871; trade directories between 1859 and 1882; local newspapers between 1840 and 1878, and the Minute Books of the Bridge Board of Guardians between 1835 and 1847. This Project is the work of nine undergraduates. It has been researched and compiled over an eighteen-week period alongside the presentation of substantial seminar papers and conventional essays. It does not pretend to offer the last word on the history of Iridge. Its authors hope, however, that it contains some facts and conclusions of interest to all who are fascinated by the history of Kent and its village communities. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful assistance which we have received from several residents in Bridge, who have placed at our disposal their own local knowledge, sources and photographs, including Mr. J.J. Williamson; Mr. H. Hawkins; the Rev. Canon C.E.H. Perry; Mrs. N. Mallinder, Chairman of the Bridge Women's Institute; Mrs. M. Sullivan; Mrs. C. Turff; Messrs. G.W. Finn, Estate Agents, Fordwich; and the Matron of The Close. We are much indebted to the Cathedral Library Archives, to the County Record Office, and to the Beaney Institute, for access to the tithe records, poor law records, census enumerators' books, directories and newspapers. Also, so far as illustrations are concerned, the authors are grateful to Mr. F.G. Kirkwood and Mr. J. Styles, the University photographer, for taking and developing some interesting photographs, and to the Faculty of Social Sciences in the University for its generosity in providing some financial assistance towards the production of this Project. Finally, we offer our joint thanks to Mrs. Mollie Roots, Mrs. Muriel Waring, Miss Janice Sewell, and Miss Julie Patterson, for typing up and checking so patiently nine chapters and several hundred footnotes from hand-written and much altered manuscript chapters. Any factual errors or slips in presentation are, of course, our responsibility entirely. John Whyman July 1978 I: THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRIDGE BEFORE 1840 John Sleeman SITUATION The parish of Bridge adjoins the parish of Patrixbourne to the north and is situated on the main London to Dover road, being some twelve miles from the latter, sixty miles from the former and 2§ milee eastward of Canterbury. The parish probably took its name, Bregge, from a bridge which crossed the Little Stour, a feeder of the Stour itself. The great Dover road, formerly the Roman Watling Street, passed through the actual village of Bridge.(1). ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES Although the Hundred of*Bridge is mentioned briefly several times in the Domesday book of 1086, archaeological evidence suggests that there was earlier settlement in the parish. Three tuuli discovered in Gorsley Wood, were opened under the supervision of the local vicar, the Rev. Francis T. Vine in the late nineteenth century. In a written report, he recollected how: "Only one at first caught the eye, but closer scrutiny revealed three tumuli of progressive fiize as to their heights and the length of their diameters, their centres lying in one straight line and the circular boundaries of the two outer mounds coeleeeing with that of the central one at the points of junction. ..., some fragments of a broken urn and a pavement slanted downwards from the exterior towards the centre of the mound. This pavement was‘£ormed of large red.hricks and was bordered by flint stones. .... The etone being new uncovered, the earth was dug out ronnd its eiees aeé it was found to be the covgrpof a large kistneen or stone chest. suns In each tumuli‘ithere we§f e kistreen similar in most respects to that previously discovered. .... Two small pieces of charred bone and a few fragments of thin gla§s were all that could be found amongst the debris. The contents lot the third tumulij were different. In it was a lerge_quentity of bones in small fragments. Some of the bones seemed to have been burnt, but the greater part had escaped the fire.” (2) From an examination of the various articles found in and about the tuuli, the interments were aasigned to the Romano-British period. Much more recently, in September l956, human remains were discovered halfway up Bridge Hill, on the lower side of the village, partly under the pavement of the north side of the Dover Road, by Post Office workers trench~ ing for telephone work. "Upon excavation over a considerable area three inhumated burials were found. These were lying in a supine position in an approximately south-west to north-east direction, with the skull to the south-west. In one grave, there were two small Roman pottery jugs of the fourth century type placed at the feet of the skeleton." (3) 2. BRIDGE IN THE 16TH, 17TH AND 18TH CENTSREES No documentary evidence relating to Bridge in medieval times has been traced, but from the year 1560 the perish registers are available, from which information concerning the population and social structure in the parish can be determined. For several reasons parish registers have to be approached cautiously. Local administration in this period was often weak, corrupt and inefficient. Although the keeping of parish registers from 1538 was legally required, there was no real means of enforcing this duty, so that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries many parishes maintained their records in a slovenly way. Parish registers do not cover the entire population. For England it is well-known that the proportion of persons baptized of those who were actually born was substantially below 100 per cent. This situation resulted from several causes, of which non-conformity (4) was the most obvious. Anti-clericalism and slackness on the part of Anglican clergy also played a part (5). The original Bridge parish registers are kept in the church but the Bishop's transcripts are available in the Canterbury Cathedral Library (6). They suffer from many gaps during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly during the period 1640 to 1661. Furthermore, for a long period the entries are written in Latin, are faded and consequertly are difficult to analyse. The problems mentioned above greatly complicate any attempt to calculate the population of Bridge prior to the first national census of 1801. However, it is possible to discern in many years an abnormally high mortality and possible causes of death. While by a simple subtraction of the nuber of burials from the number of baptisms it is also possible to get some idea of the different stages of population growth in Bridge. Bridge parish seems to have escaped both the plague and smallpox epidemics which struck London, Canterbury and even Faversham during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly in 1625, 1636 and 1666 (?). In those years there was an average number of burials in Bridge. Plague, as a highly infectious desease, which did not discriminate between rich and poor, had been endemic in England since it first appeared as the Black Death in 1348-49. To start with it had afflicted towns and villages but from the fifteenth century onwards it was an increasingly urban phenomenon. Urban overcrowding helped it to spread. During the seventeenth century plague rarely afflicted relatively isolated rural comunities. Bridge escaped the plague epidemics in Canterbury probably because its small population was dispersed about the parish to such an extent that the disease had little chance of spreading. This seems all the more likely with only 89 and 120 commuicants in the parish respectively in 1588 and 1640 (8). Assuming that comunicants largely meant the number of people over the age of 14, which would have been about 602 of the population, then one can estimate a parish population for the two years of approximately 120 in 1588 and 150 in 1640. Generally, in England the death rate in prerindustrisl times was highly volatile. Epidemics of influenza and typhus, which caused excessive deaths, no doubt afflicted Bridge on a number of occasions, hut the evidence to say the least is rather tentative. especially since the small population of the 3. the worst sequence of the entire century) restricted food supplies to such an extent that human resistance to particular diseases was lowered. Economically marginal people like infants, widows and beggars in the parish suffered from either influenza or typhus. Over the two years 1596 and 1597 burials reached 11, as against no recorded burials in 1595 and 1598. 1616 was another year of population crisis, when the total number of burials for the year reached 11. Although the harvests for the previous three years were by no means deficient Creighton believes that this particular year was unhealthy throughout England (10). In order to distinguish between different diseases one needs reasonably accurate statistics relating to infant mortality. Infant mortality in Bridge accounted for a sizeable proportion of deaths prior to the nineteenth century, as can be seen by such entries in the registers as: "Mildred, an infant, the daughter of James Jurdonn, buryed April 15th, 1689" "John Burley, an infant, February 2nd, i792" Smallpox, for instance, affected children in particular,-along with influenza, while enteric typhoid mainly killed adults. Without a distinct seasonal pattern of mortality, as in l6l6 one cannot attempt to pin-point a particular disease as the cause of the excessive burials. In 1629 burials were again well above the average figure, reaching 13, compared with two in 1628, three in 1630 and two in l63l. For mortality to be this high in so small a parish population something obviously abnormal occurred. The harvests in the preceding three years were not deficient and there are no entries in the registers which provide clues as to the causes of death (11), except the fact that the majority of burials occurred in the winter and early spring. Possible causes of mortality in this situation would be influenza, typhus or even a particularly cold winter. The highest number of burials in any year during the period 1560 to 1840 was 16 in 1679, closely matched by 15 in 1790 and 1792. Major sickness is suggested following on two poor harvest years. That of 1677 was deficient and the following harvest in l678 was particularly bad with grain prices rising to over 30% above the moving average (12). For the three years 1678-1680 30 burials are recorded, mainly during the winter months which once again suggests influenza or typhus. That poverty existed in Bridge is clearly evident from several entries in the burial register during the later seventeenth century: "Francis Marsh (a poor hous-holder) April 20th 1686" "Thomas Harding (a very poor antiont house—holder) was buryed December 6th, 1689" "Buried Mary Taylor, a poor stranger (or travelling woman) on the 9th day of November, 1696". Whatever types of sickness caused the short-term population crises during the period 1560-1840 they were never strictly epidemics. Rather they were more likely to be localised cases of disease, restricted perhaps to a hand- ful of families and certainly induced by a lack of proper nutrition, which in some households resulted from domestic poverty. 4, Poverty continued to exist in Bridge at least up to the latter part of the eighteenth century, as can be seen from the following entries in the parish burial registers: "November 18th, 1792, John Bentley, a pauper" "November 30th, win East, a pauper". Poverty existed alongside the wealthy families and country seats, who caught the eye of contemporary writers and travellers of the eighteenth century. "Proceeding towards Canterbury and passing the sixty-third stone, you enter Barham Downs .... Several villages and elegant gentleman's seats are situated on the right and left of these downs; on the right is an eminence, on the left a beautiful vale, in which runs a small branch of the river Scour. On the right is Den-hill house and gardens, the seat of Lady Gray; near which is Nethersole house, the mansion of - Winchester, esq; which is situated in the small village of Wymlingswold.9Ll3) Fuller and more detailed contemporary descriptions of Bridge and its surrounding area begin to appear during the eighteenth century. The Rev. W. Grostling, who travelled the Dover to Canterbury Road, in the latter part of the century, passed through Bridge. He has left a record of his recollections of the area as follows: 5. their incumbents and ecclesiastical patronage. This definition of local history in his own day is well reflected in his account of Bridge: "THE MANOR OF BLACKMANSBURY, alias BREDGE was parcel of the possessions of the abbey of St. Augustine belonging to thesacristie, as appears by the registers of it, in which frequent mention is made of this manor, with the free tenants belonging to it .... In which state this manor continued ‘till the suppression of the abbey in the 30th year of King Henry VIII Ll538-9/ when it came into the king's hands, where it remained till the Béthfyear of that reign 1l544-5/, when this manor, with divers lands in Houndpit and Blackmansbury,-was granted to Henry Laurence, to hold in capite by knights service .... and in his des- cendants it continued till the 18th year of queen Elizabeth's reign £lS75—§], when it was alienated ..., to William Partherich, esq. .... His grandson Sir Edward Partherich, of this place, passed it away in 1638 to Sir Arnold Braems, descended of a family originally out of Flanders; where his ancestors were opulent merchants. Jacob Braems, his ancestor, was of Dover, merchant, and built the great house now the custom house there, where he resided. Sir Arnold Braems .... built a spacious and magnificent mansion on the site of the ancient court- lodge here, which he named BRlDGE—PLACE, in which he afterwards resided, ‘as did his son Walter Braems, esq. till his death in 1692; but the great cost of building this seat so impoverished the estate that his heirs, about the year 1704, were obliged to part with it, which they did by sale to John Taylor, esq. of Bifrons, who soon afterwards pulled down the greatest part of this mansion, leaving only one wing of it standing, the size and stateliness of which being of itself full sufficient for a gentleman's residence, cannot but give an idea of the grandeur of the whole building when entire. He died in 1729, since which the manor and seat has continued in his descendants, in like manner as Bifrons above described, down to his great grandson Edward Taylor, esq. the present possessor of them. There is not any court held for this manor. BEREACRE, now called Great and Little Barahers is_anothgr manor in this parish, which in the 21st year of King Edward I £l292j§/ was in possession of Walter de Kancia .... Not long after it passed into a family of its own name. After this name was become extinct here, it came into possession of the Litchfields, who owned much land about Eastry, Tilmanstone and Bettgshanggr, and in this name it continued till the 22nd year of Edward IV 1l482-3/ and than Roger Litchfield passed it away to Richard Haut, whose only daughter and heir Margery carried it in marriage to William Isaac, esq. of Patrixbourne, from whose descendants Edward Isaac, about the latter end of King Henry VIII it was sold to Petyt and Weekes, who joined in the sale of it to Naylor, of Renville, from which name it was alienated to Smith and Watkins; after which it was conveyed by sale to John Taylor, esq. of Bifrons, in whose descendants it has continued down to Edward Taylor, esq. the present owner of it." (15) Having described the descent through several centuries of major properties Edward Hasted noted how a form of charitable poor relief in Bridge had originated in the early seventeenth century, when "Sir HENRY PALMER, of Bekesbourne, by will in 1611 gave 105. to be yearly paid out of his manor of Well-court, towards the relief of the poor". At the close of the eighteenth century eighteen poor persons derived some relief from his particular charity.(l6) It was very much a part of Hasted's conception of local or parish 6. history to describe the history enfi architecture of the parish church. "Bridge is within the ECCLESIASTECAL JURESDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury and deanrz of its own name. The church, which is dedicateé to St. Peter, consists of three isles, a high chancel, and a north sept or chancel in the middle of the north isle. It has a spire steeple at the south-east corner, in which there are three bells. In the high chancel, within the alter- rails, is a monuent for Jane, seconé fieughter of Walter Harflete, of Bekesbourne, first wife of Sir Arnold Braems, Oh. 1635, and lies buried in St. Mary's church, in Dover ...¢ Against the north wall is a painted portrait of Robert Bargreve, gent. of Bridge Ob. 1649 .... The north chancel is made use of for a school, by voluntary contributions .... In the register are many entries, from the year 1580 to 1660 of the family of Bargrave, alias Berger, residents in this parish, and one for Thomas, son of John Cheney, gent. who died in 1620. The church of Bridge, which is a Vicarage, was always esteemed ae__ a chapel to the church of Patrixbourne, and as such is included in the valuation of that Vicarage in the kings hooks, the vicar of which is instituted and inducted into that Vicarage, with ;;e chapel of Bridge annexed to it. 91. The above property comprises Six Bedrooms, Sitting Room, Smoking Parlour, large Club Room, Bar, Bar Parlour, Tap Room, Kitchen, Larder, Small Yard, Cellar, Private Cellar, Cleansing Room, Tun Room, Cooling Room, Malt Room, Hop Room, Office and a 3-stall Stable with Loft over." (91) Matters relating to the Plough and Harrow might be reported in the local newspapers, as on 4 September l86O when it was noted that Mr. Richard Mutton's application for a license to sell spirits at the Plough and Harrow had been granted by the magistrates at a Special Petty Sessions which had been held to consider public house licences. (92) Having obtained his wine and spirit licence, over forty gentlemen assembled on one Tuesday during the following November at the Plough and Harrow and "including several from Canterbury and the surrounding villages,... [;hey7 partook of an excellent dinner and dessert provided by mine host (Mr. R, Mutton) in first—rate style." (93) Public houses were prone to some trouble on occasions, for r instance during 1874 when George Jordan, a labourer, refused to leave the Plough and Harrow when ordered to do so. Having been evicted once by P. C. Cordery, he went in again and had to be ejected a second time, on which occasion he used very bad language and became violent. When tried at St. Augustine's Petty Sessions, Jordan was fined 10s. with 8s. costs, or in default, ten days‘ hard labour. (94) In an age of advanced evangelicalism, when excesses of most kinds were frowned upon, cases of drunkenness were no exception and for 1870 there was the case of a Bridge man who having arrived in Rye was arrested there for drunken behaviour: "At Rye, on Tuesday, Thomas Barton, 40, chairbottomer of Bridge, near Canterbury, was charged... with being drunk and disorderly — P. C. Wood said that he and Supt. Butcher were called to the Strand on Monday in consequence of a distur- bance taking place there. They found the prisoner in an intoxicated condition and using very obscene language. He moved on to the William the Fourth; afterwards he was induced to go away. Witness, however, said he again had his attention called to the prisoner at Landgate, where the prisoner was lying on the pavement and forming a centre of attraction for the mob. Finding it impossible to get prisoner to go away quietly, witness took him in charge. - Prisoner had no defence to offer. He said he had come into the town to go shopping and was full of liquor. — The magi- strates severely reprimanded the prisoner; for it transpired that the shopping expedition had been undertaken on account of his wife who had just been confined, and the money which he took with him was to obtain necessaries for her, had been spent in this disgraceful way. He was ordered to pay a fine of 305., and costs". (95) The Kentish Gazette with its tongue placed firmly in its cheek, printed the above under the heading "An Affectionate Husband". with Canterbury so near at hand it is somewhat puzzling to understand why Barton selected Bye for a shopping expedition. 920 William Attaway, now aged 44, appeared again before the magistrates in l876,having been convicted 26 years earlier in l85O for theft as was noted in the section entitled "Law Enforcement in Bridge". He wasaxxhabitual petty criminal who on this occasion was described as "an elderly man, residing at Bridge". He was summoned before the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions "for having been found drunk on the highway at Lower Hardres on the 26th February", to which accusation he pleaded "guilty" and was fined 5s. with 8s. costs. He was also warned by the Chairman that "he might have been dealt with much more severely and if he came again he would be," to which the defendant replied "I thank you, for the honour you have done me”. (96) It is interesting to note how Attaway was described as "an elderly man" at only 44 years of age. Victorian public houses were meeting places for various societies or gatherings, such as in 1868 when "the meeting of the Bridge Constitutional Association held a well attended meeting at the White Horse Inn. The chair was taken by Captain Winter, A. Sicard, Esq., vice—chairman... During the evening the announcement of the Conservvtive victory in West Kent was made known amid loud cheering, and the healthsof the successful candidates were drunk with due honours. During the evening several capital songs were sung by members of the Association." (97) Six years later at the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions, Robert Ayres, landlord of the Red Lion Inn at Bridge, successfully applied for an extension of time from 10 p.m. until ll p.m. on the first Saturday of each month, so as to accommodate the Bridge Friendly Society which had 545 members. (98) Towards the end of this period, the meadow adjoining the Red Lion Inn witnessed a number of Stock Sales, which were held by Messrs. Sladden, auctioneers of Adisham and Bekesbourne. At these sales farmers and gentlemen of the neighbourhood sold their surplus livestock, prior to which the auctioneers commonly provided luncheon in the adjacent inn. Compared to the village inns the parish church was rarely mentioned in the newspapers but on 6 December l855 §hg_§g§1_fig3§;Q printed a letter from an irate churchgoer concerning seating accommodations in the Church: "To the Editor of the Kent Herald. Sir — Will you have the kindness to insert what appears incredible, but is a fact, viz; _ My house is my own, I pay church—rates, poor—rates, highway rates and national taxes, but cannot obtain a pew in the church for myself with Mrs. Boyack and my friend. Will any of your correspondents have the kindness to point out a remedy? Ymmstnfly, Alexander Boyack, Commander R.N." (99) This was clearly a disturbing situation to a man who was considered to be one of the village gentry. 93» Although repairs and improvements to the church were undertaken between 1859 and 1861 the churchyard by 1860 was also suffering from overcrowding. ' new burial ground was consecrated. "Owing to the increase of population, and the crowded state of our present churchyard, the want of increased accommodation for interments has been sometime felt in the parish. ZThig7 want, however, has just been supplied by the noble munificence of the Marchioness of Conyngham, who has not only given an adjoining piece of land for that purpose, but paid the expenses of the transfer and consecration, etc.‘ The ceremony of consecration was performed...by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of a number of neighbouring clergymen, who had been invited by Dr. Stevenson to meet his grace on the occasion. We understand that it was the intention to open the church, which has been re—pewed and is undergoing thorough repair, at the same time as the But as the repairs are not in a sufficiently advanced state the re—opening has been unavoidably postponed. It is estimated that the alterations, completed and in progress, will cost upwards of £4,000." (100) Devoted clergymen were held in the greatest respect and esteem by the parishioners, as and when the residents of Bridge and Patrixbourne said farewell, during July 1872, to their curate, the Rev. Lewis Clarke. At the farewell ceremony the Earl of Mountcharles, as son of the Marquis of Conyngham, occupied the chair from which he read the following address which was "elegantly illuminated on parchment and framed": "We the undersigned, learning with much regret that the Rev. Lewis Clarke, Curate of Patrixbourne and Bridge, is about to leave, desire to offer for his acceptance a silver salver and purse containing £55, as a small token of our esteem and regard for his zealous efforts and Christian ministration amongst us, and we trust that every blessing may attend him in the new sphere of usefulness in which he now enters, and also follow him through a long and useful life.” (101) The Conyngham family displayed considerable interest in the welfare of the villagers, seeking to improve the quality of their day to day lives and being instrumental in the setting up of the Bridge and Patrixbourne Schools in 1849. The laying of the foundation stone was an occasion for considerable ceremony and celebration, and as such warranted a lengthy report in The Kentish Gazette. "On Friday the foundation stone of the schools was laid, on a well—adapted spot of ground on the banks of the Lower Stour, and behind the main street of Bridge, leading to Patrixbourne... The stone was laid by the Dowager Marchioness of Conyngham, to whose munificence the promoters of the laudable undertaking are indebted for the site, as well as for pecuniary assistance... The Marchioness having taken the place assigned to her, and the company and the school children being arranged round the enclosure alloted to them, the Rev. Mr. Stevenson, the worthy and exemplary rector of the parishes reviewed briefly and eloquently the object which had drawn them together, closing his remarks with an appropriate prayer... The stone was then lowered to its place, and the Marchioness struck the stone three times with the maul. That portion of the ceremony was concluded. The Rev. J. Stevenson once more addressed the meeting, and a hymn, composed for the occasion, as sung by the children and the vast assembly, the 54," "-‘ i5¥idae:2iearetCé‘£%é#*»uf 1 L Q’ . % - } ’.et’ e1;u_1e5~,>~aEd?ffiéguiatipzgs ‘ 7 I3‘. 1-.- ‘ , ~.’:-.‘«._- . _ . -7» . 5) I'.9’.‘.'._ " ‘ 1.—’—=The~.7.tenizntsitd’ be-inhabitant; bout.’ -pavxjsh ‘ offi .;'IB.uIneu3. .5 A.nyj_AtVe11ax11; 5 leaving the ’ 4 parish, to b_e:.pe1-‘mitted to retain. his;'n1lotme1}§.. b till the end o£_th_e yea:-_, __ , ~ ' _’t ,— -.~ - , fr .. .1“ '.v.2.t;2-:'.v.’r-‘ -4 .- 4,- _j".'-,'"' . ' » .- .. ..,. , v . .’ '2.——_—The rent ‘for. eaeh nllotmefit _(fi1;e shillings) to "be pa_i_d__ t9 the Iandloia or his ’ age1nt,on"th6‘first;_ ,T1‘«£q§1(l1:}jf"in*October in each year, at the plizfcewand hour appointed. H ‘ to. 1 the i‘rates' dud .!,. I H. - a - - . . . -- .‘I:i"v.' :-W1" "r" Iv‘-x " .n " "§:'i.’/ 451:‘-=~v-' '7" 1 ‘ r"::.»...4.i.The lexfixclildrd and his;.agent,.:'un<1 any“ of the comm‘ittee,‘-t_o ha\'e the 1ibert_v,"nt all A times,Vto .cnter.oi1 the lahd for all reasonable Zpux-1')os'es.-j. .-uh‘-,:;.. ‘;=I~ -»;i’z‘--«,af ".I‘%-'~.€'.: HM-‘E ';"".'»""T7.' A,‘-T"; "7 “"""“' ' . . __,..,,‘,._.A§,:,;9-.‘,. . . M . . ’ t M5.)-‘.—’No tengnt trespass tzpee zmother’s . ';3""aiI16tinent,' or f to’ ‘plant: within? ten’ inches of [the outeide. ”. ~ A V if»:-9’ .5’-'3 t ‘-5! 1 ._' NS $'.1L.‘A.TfE ‘ ' . ~-_.’~,1. u; A ‘I: . " ’;-3,, ».-39.-—'The‘ tenant, ’to_{_E_:,11J1ti\*;z,tc.=._._§his'i,» . -epade husbandry only. , i. I ”i_1-"1.ij—-Should any teiiuht permit -his.V_chililrenH ‘A-i:eh'an‘i:‘,“:‘or~to destrey any of his: crops, he may tenhht whoA_ehn1’i be fimgved. as "iaws’“os his ‘Lodntry; 't63’£ar£e’it"'~i1is'a_11ot—, , .11’1.e'x‘1't riotfceidr c<')1fzpén‘s11v'i:i(>‘1'1§"" ' 5"." ‘!:;‘!.~K‘;-‘.' ‘ : -‘-~ :27»: 4..- ’ !; h‘-*' *3 ‘-' (3.-‘-'-"—N6 ‘tenant - to V underlet .» his ‘- allotment, or to feed-‘any live stock upon it._-.: 3:43 v I I I gathereci on any allotment on _Sunday, Goodll ‘ .or thanlzsgivixxgfifd-:‘1y.';_:,.,b‘,3. - " . ‘. %; -"'7 teiiizzitt to pla1i_t§m'ei'e:tha21.threb~‘ W fotwthe of his hllotgncrit with Ifiotatees, ox: moxev V '"{:'th:‘Ln "one—11a1f‘ wfth -_ 15eas"or‘ beams in.‘ one xyealr, ::*4-7gi~"~to. phmt iii. future. tmjf. fr11it.trees';oifi‘h1xshe§. .,-§‘u»”J:. .':?:*z.¥ 1'? ,§>a_x‘-:1 ‘veil :.-}'-- ‘x.-::.i:{;‘— ‘us I 8.-——’i‘ho tenant‘ to ’rA1’mnure‘ hiahgrotulflh J“ I. .' - . ‘iaitffieie'1:.tiy, “c‘(')‘]:£eep'.hi.s _pnth‘c}em1." "5' . ~..«.. ‘.25- 4':-'j..';.;;.:;;: é;x‘..f.'=‘ 7‘ — no-u-co -' , he ;-.:10.—‘-.-;\*<‘>'.tex1zix1f:_?.to ontey; .3; .q'uit,._the_ garden gbfield teztcephfby the ‘t1Vppo'i11t‘=ed .1'ez1d._.!—.-._,.-‘,';‘..,~ _v,._, ' V. ti-espass iipoh» the allotment of; any ; other he ' ealleé wlpon, ' at; the :.'diec'i'eti_on‘ .of ,. the com; mittee, to forfeit“ his allotrnent'tit~.the and of the year. ‘— " ~».« -:1-",&::";.v; " ~ ~.«--_-- - - .» _ ,- , - gxnity of any mzsftemeanour or ofience agmnst _ ,- , .5» ._., ‘I‘- ; u . o . u < - .. v13'?§;No work to he done ohizfiegétizbtes » I Friday, Christmas-,_d§y If on any public fnst . ;.i‘Ykii.! V". 94. reverend gentleman's curate reading the words. Three times three hearty cheers were given and a profusion of plum buns distributed amongst the school children by Miss Augusta Conyngham, the lovely and interesting daughter of Lord Albert. The national anthem closed the day which will be one long remembered in the neighbourhood." (102) In typical fashion, being concerned with the proper display of rank, wealth and quality The Kentish Gazette proudly noted how this function had been attended by Matthew Bell, Esq., and his lady, the Hon. C. Tollemache, the Rev. J. Stevenson and his lady, Captain Winter and family, the Misses Taswell, the Rev. J. White 959 being the instigator of the allotment gardens, and without whose assistance this boon would not have been granted." The Kentish Gazette derived much satisfaction in reporting that "nearly three hundred of the labourers are among the subscribers." (108) The only real flaw in the smooth running of this annual show occurred in 1876 when "there was a little unnecessary confusion in the evening consequent upon the eagerness which some competitors exhibited to regain possession of their articles." (109) It was the success of the Bridge Horticultural Society which led to an annual exhibition of potatoes grown by cottagers holding allotments in the parish of Bridge. The exhibition was held at the Plough and Harrow Inn, where in l874, for instance, it was reported that "the collections of potatoes were considered by the judges to be the most distinct and useful varieties ever exhibited." (110) SPORTING EVENTS IN THE VILLAGE Despite the presence of a sporting tradition in the cultural heritage of Kent and England, reports of sporting activities in Bridge were rather sparse, so much so that no reports of cricket being played in Bridge appeared between 1841 and 1872, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the proximity of Canterbury, with its illustrious cricket week becoming the social highlight of the city's summer calendar; and yet on Thursday 9 July 1840 a cricket match had been played in Broom Park involving clubs from Bridge and Denton, following which the batting performance of the Bridge team was reported by The Kentish Gazette. BRIDGE First Inniggs Second Innings Howard run out 0 Sherrard c by Wanstall 0 Johnson c by Woodland 5 Collard c by do. 1 Sayer b by Newman 5 Dodd not out 17 Dodd b by do. 5 Saxby not out 10 Saxby b by Austen 5 *- Collard c by do. 0 28 Sherrard c by Newport 0 Hooker b by Newman 0 Summerfield c by Webb 7 Williams not out 14 Forth c by Newman 4 Byes 2 45 Since Denton were bowled out for 30 and 33 in their two innings, Bridge was victorious by eight wickets; Mr. Howard took the bowling honours with six wickets in the first innings and five in the second, whilst Messrs. Collard and Forth, apparently taking time off from their Poor Law responsibilities, clearly did not enjoy a very successful day. (lll) Two weeks later there was a return match at the Beverley cricket ground between Bridge and the Canterbury Amateur Clubs, with success going to Bridge with four wickets, still outstanding; however "as the 95. first match was decided in favour of the Amateurs, with six wickets to go down, it surely would be worth the contending parties to try who shall be considered the conquerors." (112) Although the Gazette happily recorded in 1841, "the eminence which this noble game is rapidly gaining in the County of Kent," (113) cricket so far as Bridge was concerned was no longer being reported in the local newspapers. No doubt some respectable Bridge residents would have witnessed the occasion during Canterbury Cricket Week in 1868 when W. G. Grace, representing the South against the North, scored 130 and 102 not out, which prompted The Kentish Gazette to remark that "this feat of Mr. Grace's is, we believe without precedent, two innings exceeding 100 in a first class match." (114) The Bridge village cricket team returned rather ignominiously to the local newspapers in July 1872, when they lost by an innings and twenty—seven runs to lckham, being bowled out for 27 and 67 whilst lckham made 121, the only consolation being the form of Mr. Howard who scored 67 runs in the match. The Bridge team on that occasion was J. Collins, C. Howard, C. Willis, Pulley, Hyder, F. Martin, a W. Winter, Esq., W. Dutnall, E. Gibbs, E. Hardeman and P, W. Tassell. (115) Other reported sporting events in Bridge offered fewer opportunities for mass participation, taking the form of challenges of some sort or another, which the public could observe if they so desired. During February 1872, ‘ "Robinson (the Spider) from London, walked his trial of seven miles over half a mile of ground between Bridge and Patrixbourne, on Wednesday afternoon. The road, being heavy,was very unfavourable to the youthful pedestrian; 7 but he accomplished the distance some time within an hour. He is matched with Ferguson to walk, on Sudbury Common, seven miles for £25—a—side on Wednesday next." (116) 1858 witnessed a foot—race between Mr. John Verrier and Mr. R. Sherrard, jun., with Sherrard giving his opponent a five-yards start. The first race ended in a dead heat and after a short rest the two men ran again, with "Mr. Verrier winning cleverly by a yard.” (117) The wealthy participated in field sports; East Kent was notable for having a number of foxhunting packs. The Earl of Guilford hounds met occasionally in Bridge for instance on one occasion at 10.50 a.m. on Friday 18 February 1876. (118) Stag Hunts were not so frequent judging from a Kentish Gazette report on 18 Apfil 1854. "A novelty was presented yesterday in an excellent stag hunt with the Thanet Harriers in the neighbourhood of Barham Downs. The party assembled at Mr. Hornsby's at Barham, when about 20 gentlemen artook of a very excellent luncheon, provided by tha§7 worthy host. The stag was uncarted near the Black Mill on the Downs, and after an excellent run of 40 minutes, 30 minutes of which were at capital pace, was ultimately taken a+ the ban” of ”h~r*“°* 97. often occasions for extensive local celebrations which were enjoyed by many people in the village. Such was the case during May 1849 when Lord Francis George Churchill, the eldest son of Lord Churchill, married Lady Jane Conyngham, "the amiable and lovely daughter of the Marquis of Conyngham,... at the beautiful little village church at Patrixbourne.” The Rev. J. Stevenson officiated, assisted by the Rev. M, A. Smelt, "in the presence of a select circle of relatives and friends of both parties." There was "a large congregation of neighbours, together with upwards of 100 school children", while "a tastefully formed laurel bower, interspersed with all kinds of flowers... extended from the entrance of the churchyard to the porch." The invited guests "subsequently partook of an elegant dejeuner at Bifrons" following which "the happy couple took their departure for Cheau, near Richmond." Over one hundred labourers and poorer cottage tenants, "seated under a splendid booth, ornamented with laurel branches and gay flags", enjoyed "a bountiful supply of roast beef and plum pudding" and were joined by some of the wedding guests. Later on that same day "the school children were regaled with tea and cake." Fortunately "the weather was most propitious, which added much to the hilarity of the joyous occasion." (120) A somewhat humbler wedding attracted the following report in The Kentish Gazette of 4 December 1866. "On Wednesday our little village was the scene of unusual excitement consequent on the marriage of Miss Kelcey,daughter of Mr. Kelcey of this place, with Mr. Nelson Collard, jun., of Canterbury. The villagers, to testify their good feeling towards the bride and her family, erected a very handsome triumphal arch on the bridge, which was very prettily decorated with ever-greens, flowers and flags and bore an appropriate motto. The church was filled with numerous friends of the happy pair and Zwith7 nearly all the inhabitants of the village, and rejoicings in various ways took place in the latter part of the day in celebration of the auspicious event." (121) The summer of 1872 saw the marriage of Miss Constance Georgina Bell, the fifth daughter of Matthew Bell, Esq.. of Bourne Park to Major F. T. Whingates who was then commanding the Royal Artillery who were stationed in Canterbury. This event caused the village "to emerge from its quietude and to assume for a time an aspect of life and festivity." Readers of The Kentish Gazette were given some of the names of the invited guests to the wedding breakfast, which was followed by a garden party: namely, the Earl and Countess Mount~Charles, the Rev. H., Mrs., and Miss Hallett, Dr. and Mrs. Stevenson, Lady Victoria and Mr. Villeries and the Rev. C. Oxenden. (122) Country House parties played a prominent part in the lives of the rural upper classes as was noted by The Kentish Gazette of 5 November 1874. "The Earl and Countess of Mountcharles have been entertaining company during the past week at Bifrons, near Canterbury; the house party including Viscount Neville, Viscount Grimston, Captain and Miss Streatfield, Mr. and Mrs. Sands, etc. The gentlemen have had excellent sport at pheasant shooting. }é%.mii§r E‘=‘§aum§L§:;i%a in F5.*E;3;*3‘.:¥s{“:;3z>::tx*3°§&' Chairéiz f . .._... .........._..._...—.... _ 5, ‘ VT‘ 1' {/ 1/ £:;' 5}. If .‘ /.___ , ‘fit 5 , 5 1 , --‘*"’ .5 I . I 5 Eu... .-W _.1 F4 f U : 5 { 5‘ ‘ ) cn//?/ 1 '- 4:‘ ~ 1-C’ ?”Z,L:[,*1‘5":, 3 w . L. ,0, "_I7‘c.7'.".' 7v"dJ’ ' 1’ d1é'3[ few’ F ,;;{7’c7§’>—“,é; Ffi ‘ -‘T . ‘.3 (77029 3/ I .4’ <1» 5 L2; 7401’ L3 f \;$ A \"\ J» 3772- ,'/;;_;,A $2 €157 V7’ -2-’ « ' I -. , vfl Q I ‘7«3tWA3a;J{/(711 :9‘: J}? 0’ / ‘I 9 A‘. // . ¢ AL» I. 3}‘/. {,(3'}(9:rt7z'(7q""l_‘,‘”[fl‘:-,7 /' :9-fz9 (Z./’ (9119) agar‘ .'.’/'(9‘' k. . H 151 . vr_ _.‘l f"; I . w., | ,7 '/7 ‘ * I‘), - T”z'a°j’#T-xi», / 2, 5:35 {:**;-::.:.- .. :n:...~.._.. z,._ (I /2’ (Dr/:::7. 7; 2_ _ 4. ‘ V/g_, ' _. ) 1 (.‘7'77I-(L./' 7’ "3 0"/L (f = / 7 ., 7'/{Z w 47 t :1. 2.} z . -7 Uc"'c‘r £7’ , ('3 1' 1. V \. V / . " 2;’-~ » .5) '37,’) //7 f J/i“%)é)z..§~.%,4 ,,-.{4{’_. % .—( .3... ’¢9§/2)’/1.12312 152;, 7 .6 /,9’ O 1’ of‘ , 1:’. r. I ,. .,, 2, 3, >| w-"._v...“..t-.':~.1§=:¢-_ _’r , L; t 72: 5 "L/)1- ‘ CDo~:m:‘%.-': €27 g!z‘z.:~497£za- ,}.¢¢:flw/m,e»,.,~;g .%,4?dLmf»6a§T%%§ ~ £I_3f(/(Zz»:?c..s" 51 22.'J'_.j-_ o ..«:poca—v-A-"""""""'"- "M ' / /Z/;%7:y%,.»% /‘I amgrw 5 5 fl b 72:‘:?.g§/‘r’ ’) . .v 8. ‘ 7 .,,fl<'_;'.‘. _ [Z0'Z7"(9'/l.:1‘9‘.‘}:; 2; ff 1:4’-"f2'/71, /K‘}..‘.'-1» I‘ /,7 E fr" "/a/’_ZJ”.«\-‘§,: I .’ E ?. '‘vx.».o C} ‘.2 .. ,3’ ~. 9», mu ‘-1 v :0‘ .1 1 Q -» ‘ “._<,?'."-7 V "/ T" ’ : aff”W»a«%«»;¢g%¢zz :;'>' r’ " 93' ‘?j:’(; ,«r,g_ ,-'/W) - : A %*"4~D:’»’T-‘('1 ’ g5;'1_.’z //3%/‘~z.l. -ZUUJ 71,. 1-7,: ' ,4./«/;;»%i ‘ml 9’ « 5 s~- »-»:_.~./ _ V ’ ‘L. V49‘,/72% 2’; .7 4.‘;/_ ;€“‘?/- «rx«’z-7/[Z7/}"'S:9.q. A.‘ "."-'7’ jt .' _,,_.‘, ()4,-2“?/6 (l/I), . j, fl :53/2967/52’/1.:-1,/.g:>__. Hf’ .. ‘S: "«,f9‘<*r-I--(45/z ._.L;......_....~..;._..-.. . - . -. .§ .» “"'“"’°-*“‘“-‘*--’-‘~’--—-J=*t~-~‘ .'..-m:a2- -*5 ' ‘y'.': § Q 1;, P i 5 i E K . 1 € r/:fl%"2’-’-Z19? K://. "/Z7(‘)“c>€C"':)(‘9~//_T (zf (' c’_ ,.','¢ my gf /_. J i 1 z E‘ ‘Z/2‘) ' 07’ ‘)/ [@"‘,;-v7‘3p99 ’ ‘y T2‘(,% ,- +3 /. S "t ‘V: ,, M _..,..,._,,‘..;..-.. :. . .......__. ... _.........w---v-’~?"::.°'.'=::~«>-« -4-«woo-v-—=——»~«..«~ «<.-muanwh. ‘ * .,t......~...... ..._.—..:...-. . _ ..........‘.....-»............wz......‘.,.m.. ......=.a. —..-.-\...-,..,,_.¢,.,. ..,.- ..m - . 98. The Earl and Countess entertained a numerous company at dinner who afterwards attended the hunt ball at Waldershare given by the Earl and Countess of Guilford to inaugurate the hunting season. The Earl of Mountcharles, according to his annual custom, since his residence in Kent, has supplied the Kent and Canterbury Hospital, also the Cottage Hospital, at Ashford, with an abundance of game, the result of his Lordship's and Friends’ sport." (123) Life had its sadder moments as on 29 January 1876 when the Marchioness of Conyngham died at her residence on the Marine Parade in Folkestone, following a short illness. Born in 1798 she had married the Marquis in 1824 and had borne him a family of two sons and four daughters, all of whom survived her. (124) On the following Wednesday her remains were deposited in the vault of the Conyngham family in the chancel of Patrixbourne Church, when the chief mourner was the Marl of Mountcharles. Although the church was filled with the inhabitants of Bekesbourne and adjacent villages, The Kentish Gazette noted, however, that "The Marquis of Conyngham was unable to attend owing to a rather severe attack of gout, and Lord Francis Conyngham, the Marchioness's youngest son, was preventci from being present at the solemnity as he was travelling in Egypt." (125) Landowners, no less than those lesser mortals below them were accident prone, perhaps even more so bearing in mind certain aspects of their social life. Few of Bridge's ordinary residents would have suffered the sort of accident that befell the unfortunate Mr. Bell who, while out shooting with his two sons during September 1878, "met with a serious accident. A partridge rose and flew back between him and his eldest son who after it had passed some distance behind, fired at it, and Mr. Bell having partly turned at the same time to watch the bird was struck by two or three glanced shots, one of which struck his left eye. Mr. Sicard of Bridge was sent for and on ascertaining that the shot had penetrated the eye, Mr. Adams, chief surgeon of the County Opthalmic Hospital, Maidstone, was telegraphed for and promptly attended. He found the injury so serious that it was necessary to remove the injured eye in order to save the other. This operation was most skilfully and successfully performed... by Mr. Adams, ably assisted by Dr. Smyth, house surgeon of the hospital, Mr. Sicard also being present, Mr. Bell having been previously placed under the influence of methylene. We are happy to add that Mr. Bell is progressing as favourably as possible, and that Mr. Adams expresses a confident opinion that the sight of the remaining eye will be preserved_ unimpaired." (126) OTHER NEWS AND EVENTS FROM BRIDGE Not all the news coming out of Bridge can be categorised so easily as has been attempted so far in this chapter, particularly singular events or developments, as well as news of a more regular occnrence, yet of minor significance. Barham Downs was on occasions a hive of activity; as a wide open expanse it was an ideal meeting_place, for instance on Tuesday, 23 April 1850, for a meeting of the East KentAgricultural Protection 99. Society, when "Friends of the Principle of Protection to British Industry" were invited by Thomas W. Collard, the Hon. Secretary,to attend a "PUBLlC MENTING on BARHAM DOWNS... to consider the present state of distress of the agricultural districts of the country and to adopt an Address to the Queen on the Subject." (127) Egg Kentish Gazette, in its report of this meeting, described it as being "unsurpassed in the annals of East Kent for numbers, respectability and unanimity," (128) calculating that over 8,000 people attended. Had a meeting of such size consisted only of agricultural labourers or the working classes it might have been interpreted as being potentially ‘revolutionary’. Five years later The Kentish Gazette carried rumours concerning possible ‘camps of instruction‘ on the Downs. It was alleged that engineers were surveying possible sites to ensure that a constant and sufficient supply of running water would be available. The camps were expected to accommodate about 4,000 troops, cavalry, infantry, and artillery.(l29) There was also a lighter side to military activity in this area when later in that year "some amusement was caused during the sham fight on Barham Downs by the appearance of a number of hares and rabbits which are very plentiful in that spot - the animals terrified by the mimic warfare ran in all directions among the soldiers, who bayonetted the poor victims without mercy, and consigned them to their haversacks in utter contempt of all game laws and game keepers." (150) Considering that a majority of the inhabitants of Bridge earned their livings from the land there were surprisingly few reports of agricultural pursuits in the village.’ Emigration was an avenue open to those who could not sustain reasonable livings or obtain employment. It was during March 1850 that Mr. Craig conducted an emigration party to Herne Bay, where they boarded a steamer for London where the ship Columbine waswaiting to conduct them to the United States. "The party consisted of about fifty, chiefly small farmers and agricultural labourers from the neighbourhood. Thegreater part are bound for Cleveland, Ohio." (131) One "Remarkable Occurrence" for The Kentish Gazette involved a breeding ewe, which belonged to Messrs. Hodges and Sons. Within a period of thirteen months she gave birth to three lambs, all at separate times, and reared as well all the offspring, the births being in January l877, on 30 September 1877 and on 1 March l878. (132) Victorian Bridge acquired its own Fire Brigade, which was established around 1874. The fire engine was presented to the village by the Conyngham family and operated with a reasonable degree of efficiency. Its services were demanded as early as 11 July 1874 when "a barn at Bridge, in the occupation of Mr. Huxstep, and the property of the Marquis of Conyngham, was struck by lightning. Immediately it was discovered that the head of the barn was on fire, the Bridge Fire Brigade was summoned. They arrived in ten minutes with their engine, under the command of Mr. Verrier and owing to their exertions the fire was quickly extinguished, very little damage being done." (133) A more serious fire broke out two years later at the farm of Mr. Collins, and was started when sparks from an engine, working with a threshing machine blew onto the roof of a large barn, which contained 500 quarters of corn. The Bridge Fire Brigade lOO. and the Canterbury Volunteer Brigade, on realising that they could not save the barn and its contents directed their efforts to saving threatened farm buildings nearby, and apart from the end of one range of stabling the fire was prevented from spreading. The buildings belonged to the Marquis of Conyngham and had been insured for £1,000, Mr. Collins's personal loss was estimated at between £800 and £900, a large portion of which he was unlikely to recoup. (134) There were occasions when the fire brigade's presence was not required, as and when, "a fire broke out on the premises of Mr. J. S. Clayson, grocer. Mr. Clayson had been in bed some time when he found out that a portion of his house was on fire. Ready assistance was given him by Mr. Harnden, builder, Messrs. F. Sutton and J. H. Verrier and Police-constable Goldsack, and by their efforts the flames were prevented from spreading. The cause of the fire was entirely an accident." (155) In order to improve this operational efficiency the Bridge Fire Brigade undertook drills, which tested appliances so as to discover how far they could be relied upon in all sorts of emergencies. On one occasion the object behind the drill was to concentrate on buildings which were situated some distance away from sources of water supply. "The result of the trial was very satisfactory. Within four minutes from the word being given the engine was at work and a jet of water from a source 450 feet away, was issuing from the pipe. Several drills were gone through with double deliveries, showing that in case of need two fires could be attacked at the same time. An attempt to reach the Church was also fairly successful. The members afterwards dined together at the Red Lion Inn." (136) The progress of the Elham Valley Railway from the time it was proposed in the mid 1860's to its opening in the later 1880's was reported in the Canterbury newspapers. The route envisaged proceeded from Canterbury, past Bridge, Bishopsbourne and Barham, through the Elham valley to Elham and Lyminge, and then by way of Seabrook to Hythe. The Kentish Gazette of 20 March 1866 noted how "The Bill for this Railway went before a Committee of the House of Commons, of which Mr. Dent was Chairman, on Monday last," when the Rector of Lyminge, the R v. R. C. Jenkins, stated under cross-examination that Bridge, compared to Barham, Bishopsbourne and Dorringston, would derive little benefit from the line. (137) Although the Act to build this railway received the Royal Assent during August 1866 the Company collapsed because it had only limited financial resources. Eventually the Elham Valley line was built, but not as a light railway as originally planned, but as a main line track. The first train ran from Folkestone to a temporary terminal at Barham on 4 July 1887. Canterbury received its first train only on 1 July 1889. (158) Miscellaneous snippets of news from Bridge suggest that life was very varied. Christmas produced seasonal announcements such as the following in 1872. 101. "Mr. Hodges, butcher of Bridge, has in preparation for the festive season a capital show of prime meat, both beef and mutton, including the following:— Heifer, bred and fed by Mr. John Kingsmill, Elmsted, and awarded first prize at the last Ashford Cattle Show; prime South Down sheep, bred and fed by the Marquis of Conyngham." (159) Ten years previously an amateur concert was held in the school room, the proceeds from which were paid over to "distressed Lancashire operatives." A full house was 'delighted' by an excellent performance and the Gazette could not bestow "Too much praise...zEn7 the ladies and gentlemen who came forward to aid so meritorious an object. The sum of £9 was received and handed over to the worthy rector, Dr. Stevenson, who from indisposition was unable to be present." (140) During February 1870 Major Castle, of Bridge Hill House, travelled down to Weymouth. During his stay on the South Coast he played a prominent role in the Weymouth Amateur Theatricals, by acting the character of King(}nrles II in a play bearing that title; The Kentish Gazette acquired from The Southern Times a glowing review to the effect that "the part of Charles II was borne with regal magnificence by Major Castle, who looked all the King (at least the King he was supposed to represent), and whose frolicsome humours he carried out with a grace and tact that were exceedingly attractive." The Major also acted in ‘Checkmate’ and ‘Nine Points of the Law‘, in both of which he received a most enthusiastic reception." (141) Unhappiness rather than pleasure was the lot of an unfortunate few some of whom achieved an exit from life in suicide, as did John Lott who, during December 1860, "was found hanging from a tree in a wood in this parish. The unfortunate man was quite dead, and had been so apparently for some time. He was about 40 years of age, and has left a widow and five children. We understand that for some time past the deceased has laboured under strong religious excitement, under the influence of which it is supposed, he committed the rash act. The suicide was of a most determined character, as when found the deceased‘s feet rested on the ground and he had found it necessary to place himself in a kneeling position in order to throw the weight of his body on the cord by which he was suspended." (142) A C(\I\lr1TTT<;‘Tr\1*T- rn1"rTn r\/an/rT1.1r\ /xm r‘.I‘VYfV -r.\1. rxrxrnrvmwwn ’1f\P"lf\ rm-.u nrrvm lO2. "On Tuesday last, the Earl of Mountcharles, son of the Marquis and Marchioness Con’ .im attained his majority. The pleasant little Vills . bridge was en fete in h n tr 5 the 2 s7" ' is event, and through theéliberality of thr §a:£ui: mafiv dulplcloku old and young, in the village, and round Bifrons kept W festival. The stranger entering Bridge in the morning found the place gay with flags and bunting and a glance at some of the houses revealed the reason, for there were various greetings and good wishes to the young lord inscribed in a variety of forms on the house fronts whilst the merry peeling of the church bells told of the general joy and gladness. It was feared that owing to the family not h ving returned to Bifrons, the rejoicings on the occasion would lack'eclat which the presence of either the Marquis or Marchioness or the young Earl would natUTa11y‘b€StOw;, but it was a most agreeable surprise to everyone to hear that, although for a very sufficient reason, neither the Marquis nor his son could join in them, the festive gatherings would be graced by the presence not only of the Ladies Conyngham who were staying at the mansion but also of the Marchioness, her Ladyship having written that morning to Mr. Robert Smith, the Marquis's head steward, to intimate her intention of coming over from Ramsgate, where she had been staying with the noble Marquis. Meanwhile the preparations for the different gatherings had progressed under the direction Of Mr. Smith who had had arrangements made for several dinners and other festivities. The first event of the day took place at the Union where the whole of the inmates were entertained in a most liberal manner. The rooms and wards were richly decorated, the work of the staff of the house,and at one—o~clock the old men and women, and children sat down in their different wards to a substantial repast of roast beef and plum pudding with beer. Grace was said by the Vicar of Bridge, the Rev. F, T, Vine, who was accompanied by the Rev. E. Seddon, Mr. R. Smith, Mr. Seddon, Mr. F. J, D. Same, Mr. Sims, chairman of the Board of Guardians, Miss Parker, and other Ladies and Gentlemen, all of whom lent willing hands to_the task of attending to the enjoyment of the poor people and young childrene While dinner was being partaken of, the Marchionese of Conyngham entered, accompanied by Lady Blanche and Lady Constance, and went through the various rooms and wards and also the Infirmary, the 'nmates of which were likewise well looked afteraea At four o'clock in the afternoon the restored and greatly extended public hall and reading room in Bridge was opened by a number of the work people on the Bifrons estate (40 in all) sitting down to a capital dinner, provided by Mr. Webb of the White horse Inn. The Rev. F. T. Vine addressed a few words to the company... and during dinner the Marchioness and Lady Blanche Conyngham came into the room., The hall presented a very gay and pretty appearance it having been handsomely and tastefully decorated by the members of the Fire Brigade assisted by several ;young ladies of the village. The hell, we may add,is the property of the Marquis, and after being restored and considerably extended had been generously presented by him to the village. Its dimensions are » 57 ft. long by 20ft. wide with an orchestra 20ft. by lOft. The hall will be used for public entertainments, meetings, etc., in addition to being used as a reading roomi 105. At the Red Lion Inn some five and twenty of the smaller tenantry partook of a substantial meal, Here too the Earohioness paid a visit and saw everyone thoroughly enjoying himself. From thence, the visitors went to the sohoolroom where a particularly lively and happy scene presented itself. There amid gay and profuse decoration were seated some 200 children with an abundance of good things set before them, the repast in this instance being a tea, The juveniles, who had come in their best attire and with happy faces, were tended by a full and sufficient staff of ladieo .——a|3' amongst whom was Lady Constance Conyngham, whilst the Marchioness looked on with interest. At the conclusion of the tea the Rev. F. T. Vine proposed a vote of thanks to the Marohioness and Ladies Conyngham and the Earl of Mountcharles, nd alluded to the many acts of kindness of the family to the schoolchildren... The children then went to the hill side and indulged in various school games being led by the Ladies Conyngham. Returning to the school as the shades of evening were gathering round they were entertained with some drawing room theatrioals by the Ladies Conyngham, assisted by Miss Francis. Before concluding it should be added that the workmen who are employed in the Mansion at Bifrons, where extensive alterations and improvements are being carried out, were likewise regaled with good things in honour of the occasion. In fact, no one was forgotten by the noble Marquis, who would himself have been present at the gatherings but for his continued indisposition. At night fall a monster bonfire was lighted on the side hill of Bridge, lighting up the country for miles around, and there was also a display of fireworks. The faggots for the bonfire were -L 3 given by Mr. J. F. Martin, T‘e village was illuminated with Chinese lanterns, etc. and in Mr. Willistsyard there was a f.agpole from which hung innumerable lanterns, The day's festivities re thus brought to a close, all who had participated in them having passed a day that will long be remembered. On the same day about fourteen of the Marquis‘s tenantry at Minster were entertained to dinner at the White Horse Inn, and 320 of the inmates at Minster Workhouse had a similar treat to those of the Bridge Union at the expense of his lordship.” (143) /\z\ ‘ /"\.f\/\/\/\/\ :5-A.£-Aéfi Kn-P\Nf\)-‘QKO @¢ 104. FOOTNOTES 1 Charles lamb (1775~1834), Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading. 2 Alan Rogers, This was their World (1972), 236 3 The Kentish Gazette, Wednesday 25 May — Saturday 28 May 1768, la. 4 Ibid., 7 August 1840 and 17 August 1852, 20. 5) Various copiesof thesanewspapers can be consulted in the Beaney Institute in Canterbury as follows: The Canterbury Journal, 1836-7. The Kent Herald, 1833-52 and 1854-6 The Kentish Observer, 1833-4 and 1836-52 There is also a volume of Canterbury newspapers for the years 1854-1856. The Kentish Gazette, 26 June 1855, 2a. The Kent Herald, 28 June 1855, 2c The Canterburv News and General Advertiser, 14 July 1855, 1a. Ibid., 14 July 1855, 1a. ;p;g., 15 December, 1855, la The Kentish Gazette, 17 March 1840, 2f. Imdq 70dwmr1MJ,2m Ibid., 25 February 1845, 2b. The Kent Herald, 5 October 1854, 2b. The Kentish Gazette, 2 April 1878. 1e. Ibid., 13 March 1866, 1f.., The Kent Herald, 2 November 1854, 1c. The Kentish Gazette, 10 March 1868 4a. Ibid., 15 May 1860, 6b. Ibid., 10 March 1840, 2c. lbid., 7 April 1840, 3b. Ibld., 17 April 1849, 3d. Ibid., 14 Jbly 1840, 2b. Ibid., 14 July 1840, Qb. Ibid., 10 June 1856, 5b. Ibid., 16 March 1858, 5b. Ibid., 4 April 1865, 5b. Ibid., 11 April 1865, 5a. Ibid., 2 May 1865, 4a. Ibid., 17 September 1850, 20. Ibid., 20 August 1872, 4a. Ibid., 25 February 1868, 1a. Ibid., 7 March 1843, 1b. Ibid., 11 October 1870, 5b. Ibid., 9 April, 4d. Ibid., 14 December 1852, 2f. Ibid., 11 December 1860, 5a. Ibid., 11 December 1860, 5a. Ibid., 15 May 1860, 6b. Ibid., 23 July 1872, 4b. Ibid., 14 February 1860, 5a. Ibid., 11 January 1876, 3d. Ibid., 24 May 1864, 3d. Ibid., 28 January 1868, 6a. Ibid., 9 June 1874, 3a. Ibid., 18 January 1876, 3a. Ibid., 15 August 1876, 5c and 5d. Ibid., 16 April 1850, 3b. Ibid., 18 October 1864, 4f. Ibid., 24 May 1864, 30. $922-2 EBEQ-s E318-2 2219-: $212‘: lEi§'s Ibid., I213-2 IEEQ-9 2211-: 2238-: lfili-9 lfili-1 E229-9 lfili-9 lEi§*v léii-2 EEEQ-9 I239-2 lflli-9 105. 16 August 1870, 3b. 12 March 1872, 3d. 12 September 1876, 5c. 7 August 1860, 5b. 4 January 1870 6e. 4 October 1850, 5d. 16 August 1870, 4f. 24 October 1876, 3c. 9 July 1878, 5b. 15 May 1860, 6b. 20 October 1872, 3a. 24 November 1874, 3a. 13 August 1878, 3b. 3 October 1876, 3a. 11 August 1840, 3a. 2 September 1843, 30. 2 September 1843, 3c. 31 August 1847, 3c. 5 September 1850, 3b. 31 August 1852, 3b. The Kent Herald, 17 August 1854, 2a. The Kentish Gazette, 29 August 1854, 2g. lhii-: 29 August 1854, Be. The Kent Herald, 2 August 1855, 1d. The Kentish Gazette, 15 July 1856, 3e. Ehii-a lfili-2 lhli-a EREQ-a liii-2 lhlé-9 lfili-9 Ehii-7 2211-: ;§lQ': EEEE-a lkli-2 Quoted 20 July 1858, 5a. 27 September 1864, 8a. 13 August 1878, 1c. 24 September 1872, 6d. 8 September 1874, 60. 28 April 1840, 2f. 5 April 1842, 3a. 6 April 1847, 3d. 13 April 1847, 30. 1 June 1847, 1c. 20 April 1852, 2g. 9 April 1872, 6d. in Raymond Carr, British Fox Hunting, A History The Kentish Gazette, 11 February 1845, 3b. EEEQ-9 I838-2 EEEQ-2 EEEQ-9 E821-s E222-9 lEE§': IEEQ-2 3929-: 25 March 1845, 3b. 19 September 1871, 1e 4 September 1860, 4f. 20 November 1860, 4f. 3 March 1874, 50. 14 June 1870, 6d. 7 March 1876, 3a. 1 December 1868, 5f. 1 December 1874, 6d. The Kent Herald, 6 December 1855, 30. The Kentish Gazette, 18 September 1860, 5a. IRES-a lhii-s EEEE-7 lflifl-a lbli-a lhii-a léii-9 9 July 1872, 3d. 1 May 1849, 3d. 1 May 1849, 3d. 13 July 1847, 30. 24 August 1874, 7a. 29 AU.g'L1S1J 1874; 73.. 29 August 1874, 7a. (1976), 118. 106. 109 Ibid., 11 August 1876, 6cd. 110 Ibid., 13 October 1874, 3b. 111 Ibid., 14 July 1840, 3d. 112 Ibid., 28 July 1840, 2e. 113 Ibid., 24 August 1841, 3d. 114 %bid., 11 August 1868, 3c. 115 Ibid., 16 July 1872, 60. 116 Ibid., 17 February 1852, 3b. 117 Ibid., 28 September 1858, 7c. 118 Ibid., 15 February 1876, 5b, reported under hunting appointments that "The Earl of Gui1ford's Foxhounds meet at 10.30 Friday 18, Bridge." The Kentish Gazette, 18 April 1854, 2f. Ibid., 22 May 1849, 3a. Ibid., 4 December 1866, 5b. Ibid., 6 August 1872, 38. Ibid., 3 Nbvember 1874, 3a. 124 Ibid., 1 February 1876, 4e. 125 Ibid., 8 February 1876, 4f. 126) Ibid., 10 September 1878, ed. 1273 Ibid., 19 March 1850, 2b. 128 Ibid., 30 April 1850, 2f. 129 Ibid., 2 August 1855: 2e. 130 The Kent Herald, 1 Nbvember 1855, 2e. 131 The Kentish Gazette, 19 March 1850, 2g. 132 Ibid., 12 March 1878, 3a. 133 Ibid., 14 July 1874, 3b. 134 Ibid., 1 September 1876, 5b. 135 Ibid., 19 February 1878, 3a. 136 Ibid., 19 March 1878, 5c. 137 Ibid., 20 March 1866, Be. 138 The history of the Elham Valley Railway has been thoroughly researched by M.J. Forwood, The Elham Valley Railway (1975) 139) The Kentish Gazette, 24 December 1872, 5b. 140 Ibid., 2 December 1862, 4f. 141 Ibid., 1 March 1870, 5a. 142 Ibid., 18 December 1860, 5a. 143 Ibid., 8 October 1878, 3ab. 119 120 121 122 108; Ibid., 1 December 1868, 3:. 123% 107. IX: 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 l854, 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 l854 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 of pauperism (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 l834 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 l854. 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 1856 (5), 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 lO8. 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 l847, 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 1854 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 l842, and from l847 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 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 Hap TTv' “* ' “‘ ‘ 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 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 1855, "by order and by declaration of the Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales dated 27 March, 1855" (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, George Gipps Esq., and Robert Ballard-Johnstone Esq. There were nineteen Parish Guardians: (10) 9 Name Parish Richard Brice Bridge John Bushell Ickham Henry Collard Patrixbourne John Sankey Lower Hardres John Marsh Hood Kingston Stephen Fuller Harbledown Stephen Gambill Waltham John Howard Upper Hardres John Harvey Bishopsbourne Nathaniel Maynard Fordwich 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 Peckhan1ofBekesbourne 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 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 Illsby 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 Bishoosbourne Thani ;tor THE COUNTY or KENT SHOWING PARISHES 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 Coigngham (15), was bought for £257. 10s. from Lord Albert Conyngham (143. 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 £4,576 (15). The construction of a Union Workhouse at Bridge was financed by a £5,000 loan from the Exchequer (161- 112. 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 2OO 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 1856 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). THE LAYOUT or 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: % To No. 7 inclusive = Girls under 16 years of age. Upper Wards — ) To No. 15 inclusive = Old Women and Bedridden Women. To No. 22 inclusive = Boys under l3 years of age. Lower Wards \_/\/L/ 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 l3 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. 8s. 9d. (BO). During the same three months fifteen paupers in Bridge had received outdoor relief at a total cost of £16. l7s. 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. THE INMATES' DIET At a meeting which was held in l835, involving all the Chairmen and Vjce—Chairmen 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): umcn R0 ll}. For the Able—Bodied: Men and Women Breakfast and Supper. Bread and cheese or butter — 6 oz. of bread for men, 5 oz. for women with l 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 lO oz. for women. Four days — Bread and Cheese - 7 oz. of bread and l oz. of cheese. For Old People The same as for the able-bodied plus l 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 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 GUARDZANS 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 £53 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 l835 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 114. 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 zxpenditure on poor relief by each parish over the previous three years after deducting expenses for emigration (34): Adisham 288 Barham 660 Bekesbourne 122 Bishopsbourne 565 Bridge l75 Chartham 884 Fordwich l09 Upper Hardres 258 Lower Hardres 261 Ickham 594 Kingston 180 Littlebourne 528 Harbledown 496 Nackington 502 Petham 483 Patrixbourne 259 Stodmarsh 120 Thanington 404 Waltham 751 Westgate » 458 Mfickham 714 Womenswold 101 Total 8 4 2 Bridge‘s share of administrative costs was £8. l5s. 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): ‘x i. Total cost of inwrelief in the first quarter of ... ... £275. 153. Ed. 115. 2. Total cost of out—relief in the first quarter of ... ... £763. 198. 02d. Plus 3 Establishment charges of ... ... 31,459. 118. 3d. 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. lOd. 2. Out—relief of £21. lls. 5d. 5. Establishment of £30. ls. 6%d. Had these costs also continued then the total cost of poor relief in Bridge would have exceeded £200 for l856. 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 l847 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, l840, 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. oad. Initially the Guardians experienced difficulties in collecting the parochial poor rates. In l836 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 7. John Bowtell was buried with his wife Olive under a tomb in that churchyard.(20) In concluding this section it is necessary to point out that there is much which is not known about pre-1800 Bridge, especially with reference to its size and to the economic and social life of its ordinary folk, but the passage of time leads to new discoveries so that when Bridge Farm, which was situated on the main Canterbury to Dover Road was demolished in 1962, the following interesting discovery was made: "The continuous jetty or overhang at the front gave the first clue that the house might be much older than it appeared and as demolition proceeded and the main timbers were exposed, the right hand end of the jetty was seen to be false and had masked a 15th century wagon entrance leading to the buildings behind the house. Little is known of the house's early history but there is little doubt that the farm was once part of the Bridge estate known in more recent times as Bridge Place." (21) A detailed photographic survey of Bridge would reveal the survival to this very day of buildings or parts of buildings whose history can be traced back to the eighteenth century or earlier. Of course, much more has survived from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. EARLY 19TH CENTURY BRIDGE As time progresses so more and more information can be obtained from written or documentary sources concerning the economic life and social structure of the village. Nineteenth century trade directories highlight some of the leading features of the parish and provide lists of local gentry and business, professional and trading families, including farmers. The historical value of directories as such is fully explored in a later chapter. A comparison of an 1828~9 directory (22) with one other published in 1838 (23) reveals some interesting facts. The numbers involved in comerce apparently increase quite considerably over this ten year period from 13 to 21 entered names. while early directories may underestimate the numerical strength of some trades this problem becomes less acute as the nineteenth century progresses. From the following lists a picture of village shops, crafts, industries, notables and inns can be obtained: For 1828-9: Frederick Colegate, Carpenter William Fagg, Baker William Fagg, Smith, etc. Margaret Green, Grocer Saml. Hardiman, Watch maker William Hyde, Sacking manufacturer Richard and Henry Jarvis, Butchers John Martin, Saddler John Minter, Butcher Vim. Verrier, Painter, plumber, etc. Thomas white, Shoemaker Thomas Hawkin, Red Lion Inn Frederick Colegate, White Horse Inn. 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 l84l with a salary of £50 a year for attending the workhouse, plus l2/— 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). In 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. l9s. 7d., but Chartham had most to pay at £19. 5s. lld. (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 givanto 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 £14. lls. 5d. 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 l836 "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 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 l840 (47). On ll 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 l840's. On 5 March 1840 the Clerk to the Board of Guardians was requested to, write to the Poor Law Commissionerstcfind 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. 0 e was generally satisfactory, es in the education of the Workhouse children (50). On 29 April 1847 the Guardians considered moving a lunatic from Upper Eardres to the County Asylum at Barming Heath, near Maidstone (51). ll7. 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 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. FOOTNOTES M. E. Rose, The Relief of Poverty 1854-1914 (1972), 8. ’.1i3_i_@.-s 8- Ibid., 11. Ibid., 11. 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, op. cit., 42. Minutes of Bridge Board of Guardians, 22 April 1855. Ibid., 22 April 1855. Ibid., 28 April 1855. Ibid., 28 April 1855. lbii-. 7th May 1855. 6 August 1855. 27 May 1855. 25 February 1856. 20 August 1855. 10 September 1855. 17 September 1855. 27 December 1855. 7 January 1856. 28 January 1856. 17 November 1856. 10 December 1856. 28 Januarv 1856. 119. X: THE FUNERAL OF A BRIDGE FIREMAN — APRIL 1910 Mrs. P. Reilly We realise at this stage of the Project that there is a chronological gap between the last chapter and the next chapter which it has proved impossible to rectify in the time available. Undoubtedly, one of the most momentous events in Edwardian Bridge is described by Mrs. P. Reilly in the following extract which has been taken from The Kentish Gazette, 9th April, 1910: The Fire Maroon Tragedy at Bridge One of the most momentous events in Edwardian Bridge, at least, to judge from the coverage it received in The Kentish Gazette, was the early death of young Mr. John Fenn, of 6 Albert Terrace, second engineer of the Bridge Fire Brigade, on 51 March 1910. It appeared from the inquest that a fire had brsken out at Pett Bottom. It was the job of Mr. Fenn Junior to light the maroon to call together the Fire Brigade. On the fatal afternoon at about 12.50 he left the 'P1ough and Harrow’ and asked his brother for a match. This his brother provided and then went off "round the corner”. Almost immediately there were two simultaneous explosions and Mr. Fenn's cap was seen by a witness to ‘go right up into the air’. The witness hurried to the scene and found Mr. Fenn lying outside on a pile of straw. Details of his injuries are graphic: "profuse hamorrhage (Kentish Gazette's spelling), left eye completely gone ..." Mr. Fenn lived for only twenty minutes after the explosion. It emerged during the inquest that second engineer Fenn had not fired a maroon before, and that instead of lying down to fire it, he had stood over it and hence received the fatal blow in the face. There seemed to be some uncertainty as to whether the maroons were faulty, and in order to satisfy himself on this issue, a representa- tive of Messrs. Brooks "took train to Bridge" and inspected the scene of the accident. He subsequently declared that the maroons were of the best quality, similar to those fired at Crystal Palace since 1865, and asked permission to fire the remaining five. He later contended that the maroons were not defective, thus clearing the name and reputation of Brooks. a Mr. Fenn‘s funeral was a stirring and solemn occasion. According to the Gazette: "Never before had the village of Bridge felt a disaster so keenly ... April 3rd will stand out in the history of the village as a day never to be forgotten ..." - 5,000 people thronged the narrow street, overflowing into the surrounding fields. Most of the gentry were present at the graveside, though the Conynghams were not mentioned, presumably because they worshipped at Patrixbourne. The dead man was given a military funeral with a firing party from the East Kent Yeomanry. The coffin was borne by six foremen andfollowed by 65 members of other Fire Brigades. "It was a mournful procession indeed as it wended its way up the hillside and.. there were but few dry eyes..." The grave had been prepared under the shadow of some tall trees bordering the road and "sympathetic hands had lined it with primroses and ivy". 120. At evensong after the funeral the Rector of Bridge, Rev. H. Knight, referring to the tragic death of Mr. Fenn said that God took us out of this world for two reasons. Either we were well ready for entry to the heavenly Kingdom or else we were ‘so hardened’ that it would be futile to give us any more chances. It was clear that the former case applied to Mr. Fenn and that the finger of God had singled him out to lay down his life for his friends. It is to be hoped that such fatalism afforded some comfort to his relatives and young widow. Y. CANTERBURY §§ 1821 In 1891 Canterbury recorded a_population of 18.503. Growth had hardly been spectacular from the 1801 figure of 10,498. For 1891 the population is given for 22 parishes, preoinots or parts within the City;; Amohg the precinété were the following;' V 1The Archbishop's Palace Prepinct' . ;p._e.e1,. 1 .152 Christchurch Preoinot’A ‘"”‘””‘ 1 230 Eastbridge Hospital Precincts 37 VSt.;J9hnYsyHospital Precincts .p , 1 ,3‘ 3? Old Castle Precincts7f}‘ ""””~ —' “i 1 62 1.OfttheeCityfs.13:parishes, only Six had within their boundaries more than 1,000 people, name1yss'“*‘~ “'"‘“ e ‘ St. George the Martyr 1,137 St. Many Bredin 2,062 St. Mary Northgate 5,160 St. Mildred 2,748 'l*~W St. Paul, including Longport 1;701 ~ 4 St. Peter 1,520 Total for these 6 Parishes: 14,328 The parish of St. Mary Northgate alone contained 28% of the City's population. l0ver 50% lived in the three city parishes of St. Mary Bredin, St. Mary Northgate and St. Mildred. Of interest as parts of the city with very small populations were the following: Black Prince's Chantry Extra Parochial I 3 & White Friars Extra Parochial 3 6 1; rnomggggg FIRMS 13 fiirms were listed for Ganterbnry in the following order: 1. Kennett, Son & Chamberlain, Auctioneers: Valuers! and complete House Furnishers, 1,2,3, 8c 4 Westate' A ‘b ,1 {H11 -.0 1-. ‘.00 10. 11. 12. 13. ‘E. Williams & Sons, Tailors and-Bree§hes—makers,1 3 St. George's Gate. ' William Prime, Hosier;1Ha%ter. and Shirtmaker,717 St. Margaret‘s Street. V ‘T ’1 v 1 J. Craik, Portrait; Landscape and Architectural Photographer 4 St. George's Gate; and also at The Pavilion, Herne Bay. G. Nash & Son, Tailors; HaitersL_and Outfitters, 51 St. George's Street. - ' ; 121. X1: BRIDGE: A PORTRAIT OF THE VILLAGE BETWEEN THE WARS Any survey of the village between l9l8 and 1939 suffers from a lack of contemporary documentation. Guide and travel books found little of interest in the village itself, although several seized upon and romanticized about "Old England's Hole" where, it has been suggested, Caesar battled with the last of the resisting Britons. (1) Books specialising in architecture dwell upon some of the local houses of interest. (2) The local historian cannot be satisfied by the guidebooks'superficial passing overof Bridge as "an old highway village of the coaching days."(3) He must necessarily turn to other sources of information. Trade directories are useful sources for the names and occupations of villages at any one time. Invariably they describe in outline the village, and itsservices and institutions. However, this source also has its drawbacks. Population figures are only accurate once every ten years, and even then can be confusing in the case of Bridge, as and when many directories failed to make it clear whether or not their population totals included residents of the union workhouse, in which cases a vexing game of arithmetic and assumption . must be embarked upon in order to arrive at logical, and hopefully correct, sets of figures. Among the local newspapers, The Kentish Gazette, provides only limited information, in a period when flower shows, the cricket club, and meetings of the Parish Council were by far the most documented events in the village. It does, however, contain some interesting photographs, including one of the Voluntary Fire Brigade in its early days. (M) The East Kent Development Survey (5), published in 1925, although not dealing with Bridge as a separate entity, places the village in a wider perspective with others of similar size in the area, and provides lists of members of various committees including,of course, representatives from Bridge. Since such written sources provide no more than a basic framework, some other source is needed in order to portray the village as it really was. The human mind offers a better and more comprehensive source than any book or document. Personal memories and recollections add flesh to the dry bones of written sources. The late Mrs. J. Friend, for instance, committed to paper in 1958 her recollections of village life, which were published in 1976 on the occasion of the opening of the Bridge by-pass. (6) They reveal much about the recent history of the village. This concluding chapter owes much to Mr. Barry Hawking, who for the whole of his life has resided in the village and has played an important role in its social life. He has also recorded many of his memories, and has passed them on to others in the form of lectures to local groups and societies. He kindly made available his notes on the village, in the absence of which a restricted and somewhat superficial study of Bridge would have been the inevitable result. What is known of interwar Bridge is portrayed under the following headings, namely, "Education", "Transport", "Trade and Agriculture" and "village life in general". EDUCATION Most of the children attended the Public Elementary School, which although 122. no longer in use today still survives as a prominent village building. It Offerfid places to 110 boys and girls and 86 infants, but was seldom filled to capacity. In 1918 the headmaster, John George Andrews, and the infants’ mistress, Miss Constance Gwendoline Wye (7), were responsible to the Bridge Local School Attendance Committee which met at 21, Burgate Street, Canterbury on the first Saturday of each month at 2.30 p.m., under the chairmanship of the Rev. Canon M.A. Nisbit from Ickham. (8) The clerk to the committee was Thoas Louis Collard, who played a prominent role in the administration of village affairs. Evidence from trade directories shows that Mr. Andrews had ceased to live in the village by 1923, but Miss Wye was still listed as "Infants' mistress, National Schools". (9) In 192% the school was described as being under the control of the Kent Education Committee, and its new master was William John Billing, while Miss M. Bell was the new infants‘ mistress. (10) By 1928 Edgar Pope had taken over as master, but the infants were still under the care of Miss Bell, (11) who seems to have held the post for some time, and.was certainly still living in the village in 1939. (12) Even by interwar standards the school building itself was old, it lacked * proper sanitation, and there was only one pup to raise all the water which was required. It educated children at least up to the age of 12, some of whom then left and wen;straight into a trade or employment. Although almost all the village children attended from the age of four, some were fortunate after a few years to be sent to school in Canterbury. Mr. Hawkins was sent by his father to the fee-paying Simon Langton School in Canterbury from the age of seven, when he used to cycle into the city each day. Fees of three guineas a term in 1918, had more than doubled to seven by 1928, when he left. Generally only the sons of tradesmen and farmers entered schools other than the National Elementary, while children from the "Big Houses" were usually sent away to boarding schools and had only minimal contact with the majority of village children. TRANSPORT Even by 1918 modes of communication had changed somewhat from the des- cription given by Mrs. J. Friend of transport in and around the village at the beginning of the century: "... Our connections with Canterbury were to walk or ride. We rode on solid tyre cycles, sometimes a penny farthingbicycle, tricycles, pony carts or horse back. Best of all was the coach with its four in hand and post horn. This came from Folkestone to Canterbury daily and was driven by Mr. Scott, passing through the village between l2 and 1 o'clock, and returning between 3.30 and h o'clock. (13) Although following the first world war horse traffic was still in heavy use, it was now the motor vehicle that was "best of all". Private cars in the village were few and far between, owned principally by the people from the "Big Houses". This is well illustrated by Mr. Hawkins‘ recollection that when he wished to purchase a motor car some time in the late 20's his mother did her best to dissuade him, on the grounds that motor cars were only for the "Big families". She further urged that if the village draper bought one, then as a family they might be thoughzby the owners of Bifrons, Bridge Place, etc., to be too well'off by half and so could forfeit their valuable custom! Of greater significance to the majority of villages were the motor omnibuses and charabancs of the East Kent Road Car Co. Ltd., which provided For 1838: Thomas Bushell, the "Gate" Frederick Colegate, Builder ané Carpenter Thomas Collard, Tailor and draper Charles Davis, Grocer Jno. Dyson, Boot and shoe maker Wm. Fagg, Blacksmith and farrier Samuel Hardeman, Watch and clock maker Thomas Hawkins,Red Lion Inn Charles Hodges, Butcher Daniel Hooker, Grocer John Horton, Baker Hen. and Rich. Jarvis, Butchers John Martin, Saddler and harness maker John Nelson Paine, Hair dresser Wiliiam Nix, Surgeon Wm. Pine, Boot and shoe maker Wm. Sayer, Painter, plumber and glazier Rich. Sherraré, White Horse Inn Amelius Sicard, Surgeon Thos. White, Boot and shoe maker William Wiliiams, the "Plough ané Harrow" (and brewer). Professions and Trades in Bridge 1828-9 and 1838, in Alphabetical Order 1828-9 1838 Baker 1 1 Blacksmith 1 Boot and Shoe Makers 1 3 Brewer 1 Builder 1 Butchers 2 2 Carpenters 1 1 Draper 1 Farrier 1 Glazier 1 Grocers 1 2 Hairdresser 1 Harness Maker 1 Inns 2 4 Painter 1 1 Plumber 1 1 Sacking Manufacturer 1 Saddler 1 1 Smith 1 Surgeons 2 Tailor 1 Watch and Clock Maker 1 1 No. of trades 12 19 Yo. of tradesmen 14 28 123. regular services to Canterbury, Folkestone and Dover. While they were efficient, they lacked much of the organisation associated with bus services today. Mr. Hawkins remembers the bus driver actually calling for regulars who were not outside the White Horse at the usual time. There were no timetables as such, and buses could be hailed at any point on their route, often resulting in bartering over fares! Some years later, another company known as the "Cambrian Company", competed along the same route, starting from the Plough and Harrow in the High Street, and in effect raced the East Kent Company! Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it, this practice ceased when regular stops and timetabling were introduced. The introduction of motor vehicles necessitated the tarring of the road whose surface up to that time assumed the form of well trodden chalky dust. When, during the First World War, a convoy of London buses came through the village en route for France, the dust raised by the first dozen or so convinced those drivers, who were accustomed to clean London streets, that the Germans had put something on the road! (lh) Motorized traffic increased steadily, but during the period under review never approached the intensity of more recent years which made necessary the long awaited by—pass in 1976. Accidents, however, were frequent, in days when there were far fewer controls over the private motorists, yet with fewer cars on the road the risks involved in driving home after a night at the pub were less and this was a practice often indulged in. There was no driving test for the would-be motorist, and Mr. Hawkins remembers that on the night he had bought his car, for the princely sum of £12 lOs Od, he learned to drive by motoring to a function at" Dover! The changing nature of transport in and through Bridge is well illustrated by a picture postcard of the High Street dating from about 1920. Painted above the front doorcn either side of the "Plough and Harrow Inn" are "Good stabling" as opposed to "Garage". A single vehicle, a motorized delivery van, chugs purposefully down the centre of the High Street, observed by one pedestrian and a solitary cyclist leaning against the bridge. TRADE AND AGRICULTURE Bridge still supported a surprising variety of trades for a village of its size, particularly given its proximity to Canterbury and the improvements in transport already noted. Shopping in Canterbury, however, was not of vital importance to Bridge housewives, since most of their basic daily needs could be secured from within the village. The following table shows the distribution of trades and professions listed alphabetically for 1913, 1918 1925 and 1939. 124. TRADES AND PROFESSIONS IN BRIDGE 1913-1939 1918 1928 Artist Baker Beer retailer Boot dealer Boot dealer and Saddler Boarding House Brick Maker Butcher Builder Chemist Coal Merchant Confection and General Cycle dealer Dairyman Draper Dress Maker Fishmonger Fly proprietor Grocer Hairdresser Insurance Agent Jobbing Gardener Laundry Motor Garage Newsagent Nurse Plumber Publican Reading—room Manager Riding School School Master Station Master Sub—PostMaster Tran sport Company Wattle Maker H H O H O F4C)F‘#‘H 0 old HIU m Hm» H 0 H14 H o m H H-H-ma~ HI4|4 H34 H ‘S u) 0 O O O »4c>=¢re4c>c>h=h4H‘m Ht» 0 O F‘F'F'O<» Hz» m m F'F'F‘m H H H O H H H 941414 #‘F‘F’C)F’F‘O H H<» ona»>o4na H P'F*F‘O H H O H14 H H o H O H H H H O H :44 0 N14 cwo o O-t‘OI4 O H 0 H m m o 0 M10 one 01414 o :3 m; The table is not wholly accurate since some directories particularly Egg Canterbury and Herne Bay Blue Book for 1939, lists relatively few commercial or private residents in the village. Where a particular trade is known to have been in existence it has been added to the list for that year. The table shows several changes of an obvious and minor nature. Thus, it is hardly surprising that as early as l9l8 both the wattle maker and the fly proprietor had ceased trading, while by 1928 one motor garage had been joined by a cycle dealer and a transport company. It is but one reflection of an agricultural area, that a blacksmith and saddler should both survive until the end of the period. In 1918 there were two builders in Bridge but ten years later both had ceased trading. It is possible that increasing mobility obviated the need for such a service in the village itself. As well as satisfying many household needs the tradesmen of Bridge practically ran the village. Such names as Friend, Price, Hawkins and Hogben were associated with many committees and organisations, including the voluntary Fire Brigade. Mr. Hawkins, whose father had been the village draper since l907, recollects how the tradesmen and farmers met informally and quite 125. frequently in the back room of the Red Lion to discuss the village affairs and trade in general. ' The shop of Frederick John Hogben, the Saddler and shoemaker in Bridge Street, was usually full of villagers only some of whom were customers, as the centre of village gossip. It was commonly known as the snob shop, from the slang for a shoemaker. (15) The Fairbrass family kept a confectioners business nearby, which around 1927, was being recorded as a greengrocer. The village drapery, located at Riverdale next to the Bridge, was started by Mr. George Hawkins in l907, and passed to his wife on his death in l928. Mr. Harry Hawkins subsequently took over, branching out to become the village newsagent from April l93h onwards, prior to which Bridge had not possessed a paper shop. Five years later Bridge had two newsagents. The newsagency business which Mr. Hawkins founded in l93h flourishes to this day and is run by his son, while the drapery side only closed down three years ago. In l93h the building of a newsagent's shop cost a mere £100! The garage was owned by Mr. Rogers, who, before the advent of the motor car, used to drive and work on steam traction engines and threshing machines at the steam engineers in Laundry Lane, known now as Conyngham Lane. The garage was unfortunately burned down, as was also the dairy which was replaced by a fish shop in 1928. Milk from the dairy had been delivered in churns, each house bringing out a receptacle into which milk was ladled from a measure, but dust thrown up from the roads made this practice somewhat unhygienic. Union Road contained a cycle agent who later moved into the High Street. Bicycles were a widely used form of communication between the wars, being the only form of personal transport which was cheap to buy and cost little or nothing to run. Bicycles were ideal for such short journeys as from Bridge to Canterbury. Adjoining the elementary school was a coal merchant, who supplied not only coal, and faggots, but also hired out his trap for outings. The willage baker baked bread in a brick oven, using faggots as fuel. The village butchers had their own slaughter-houses and it was a common sight to see livestock being driven throughthe village, to be sold over the counter within the next few days. From l9l3 to beyond l9l8 the Misses Tutt, were in business as dressmakers. They were local girls who had received the necessary training on leaving school, as the daughters of Mrs. Mary Tutt who had been a dressmaker in the village before the Great war. Bridge had a mill which was owned by Charles Holland, who ground not only flour, but also sold coal, which explains why the land where the mill once stood is now owned by Corralls Ltd. The windmill was demolished some time during the 1930's, a move which would arouse opposition in these days of preservation and planning permission. Sidney Gilbert was the sole surviving blacksmith between 1918 and 1939. His forge was situated where Turner's now stands, and it was customary to see a row of horses awaiting his attention in the street outside. He was never short of custom, for not only was there a riding school behind the Red Lion, but within the parish there were seven farms. Bridge Farm was associated with lands in the village and on the hill, where Western Avenue now stands. What is today Great, Middle and Little Pett, was one single farm which. Alana with Lsnhaia esnv;~- - -'- ~ 126. mixed farming of other kinds, while Hode Farm specialised in apples, and kept pigs in its orchards to aerate the soil. Highland Court Farm was much smaller than the others until the Whigham family began to develop it. VILLAGE LIFE IN GENERAL Class distinctions remained strong in Bridge, as in many other areas of the country, during the interwar years. Situated close to the village were the two major estates of Bifrons and Bourne Park, plus a smaller estate, known as Higham or Highland Court. The owners and occupants of these big houses were socially superior to all other people and were viewed with a great deal of respect. They were major employers of labour, but not necessarily from the village itself. They engaged butlers, cooks, footmen, housekeepers and other menial domestics, such as grooms, gardeners and maids. Essentials for their households were supplied by village tradesmen, who valued their custom highly. Below these aristocratic or gentry households were the highly revered ”' occupants of the other big houses such as Bridge Hill House, East Bridge House, Bridge Place and Field House. The next rung of the social ladder was occupied by the farmers and leading tradesmen, such then was the social hierarchy of Bridge which survived the l920's and 1930's, with the Talbot family being remembered in the village as the last of the gentry. Mr. Hawkins recalls having to try very hard to prevent his mother from going out to the chauffeur-driven car from Bourne Park which had sounded its horn for attention in the road outside the draper's shop. He recollects remonstrating with the chauffeur, informing him that in future all customers would have to come into the shop for service. The Conyngham family continued to be good absentee landlords. Fences and other property were kept in good condition, and footpaths across their land were kept clear. They owned the Reading Room and Village Hall, which they rented to the village at the peppercorn rent of a shilling a year. Count Zborowski derived much satisfaction from building a model light railway up on Barham Dawns, which attracted many notable actors, novelists and actresses, before he met his untimely end, while motor racing on the Continent. The joint living with Patrixbourne had been held since 1897 by the Rev. Hubert Knight, M.A. of Christ's College Cambridge, who resided at Patrixbourne. He was noted for being absent minded and for his fondness for gardening, which occasioned funerals or wedding parties having to send messengers over to Patrixbourne to fetch him from his garden, because he had forgotten his appointmems at the Church. he is also remembered for having asked after the health of people whom he had buried! .Bridge has had only three doctors during the entire period that Mr. Hawkins has lived in the village. Dr. Wilson was an Irishman who had the unfortunate habit of giggfing even when confronted with the most serious situations. He never rose before midday, and would ask people who called before noon to go away and come back later if they were really ill, and yet he was quite happy to see patients at 3 o'Clock in the morning. He was followed by Dr. Hunt who although less flamboyant, was considered to be an excellent doctor. The Bridge Union Workhouse was managed by Mr. and Mrs. Honney, with the help of only two staff nurses for the female and male wards. In l9l8 the % 127. Board of Guardians met on every fourth Thursday at 12 noon in the Workhouse, under the Chairmanship of J. D. Maxted Esq., of Littlehourne. (16) The Assessment Committee met on the first Saturday of each month at 21, Burgate Street, Canterbury. (17) The clerk to the Guardians was Thomas Louis Collard of Bridge Hill, who is remembered for his hard hat as well as for his devotion to committee work. His work for the Bridge Blean R.D.C. involved him in the collection of rates, which he undertook personally, calling from house by house, as and where the rates had not been paid immediately! Bridge had a rateable value in l92h of £2,262 (18) divided among a population of nearly 900, although in 1918 it had been £3,hO5, when the population was 823, according to the 1911 census. (19) Bridge appears as a relatively healthy village between the wars. In 1922 the death rate for the Rural District was 12.1, compared to lh.O for Deal and 9.8 for Walmer. (20) The average death rate for England and Wales in 1922 was 12.9. The birth rate was quite low relative to other places nearby. Margate had a very high rate at 19.5, while Bridge with a rate of 13.6 was only just above the lowest, Broadstairs, which recorded 12.1. (21) The population of the village changed but little over the twenty years falling between 1911 and 1931. Excluding the inmates of the Workhouse, the figures at each census are as follows: 1911 — 723 1921 - 699 1931 — 713 (22) Allowing for the fact that 13 men of the village perished during the First World War, (23) the discrepancy between the figures is only eleven between 1911 and 1921 as against only lb between 1921 and 1931. Overall Bridge had a remarkably stable population, having ten fewer inhabitants in 1931 compared to 1911. Recreational facilities and organisations existed or developed to meet the interests of most villagers. A Womeds Instiunxawas established in 1919, (2h) while a cricket club had existed intermittently since lTh8. (25) The Horticultural Society was reformed in 1920, (26) while for younger generations a scout troop met behind the Red Lion Public house, followed later by a boy's club. The British Legion organised railway outings until the closure of the Elham Valley line during the Second World War. One organisation of vital importance was the Bridge Volunteer Fire Brigade, whose equipment in 1918 included a Merry~Weather manual engine and about 1,200 feet of hose. The Fire engine was hnrqnflrnvn ha4nn nn17nfl kw +ua onmn an“--- 128. the last war, while the early hoses were made of leather and thick rubber. The fire brigade remained independent up until the Second World War. CONCLUSION Bridge developed in the same way as countless other English villages between l9l8 and 1939, but like the rest of them it had its own characteristics. These manifested themselves in the institutions, the people and the life style.’ of the village which we have looked at in the preceding chapter. Hopefully ”‘ future generations, and not only the historians will find it easier to trace‘ the development of the village in modern times, for there is an increased interest in recording aspects of village life, not only by individuals but 7 also organisations like the Womeds Institute, whose ‘Countryside Survey‘ wil be of great assistance in assessing the changing position of Bridge in the § last decade. [:7/‘\/'\r-\/'\/\/‘N/‘\ ®\Q @"~} C\\J'1 -3-_'LU 129. FOOTNOTES C.G. Harper, The Dover Road (2nd Ed., 1922), 222-22h. J. Newman, The Buildings of England - North and North East Kent, (2nd Ed., 1976). 65, 73, 88, 91, 121, 159. Marcus Crouch, Kent, (1966), 208. Reproduced in (Mrs.) J. Friend, Notes on the village of Bridge (Cant.,l976),2‘ P. Abercrombie, East Kent Regional Planning Scheme, (1925), 2%. Friend, o .cit. Kelly's Directory for Kent,(19l8), 103. Ibid. Kelly's, og.cit.(1923). A37. Kelly's; og.cit.(l92h), 106. Kelly's, op.cit.(l928), 110. The Canterbury and District, Herne Bay and Whitstable local directory, 193g (Brighton, 19393 , 579. Friend, oE.cit. 6. Ibid. ‘Snob : a shoemaker, shoemaker's apprentice, cobbler‘, Chambers Twentieth Centu Dictiona (revised edition, 1971), lOh5. Kelly's, oE.cit. E1918), 10h. Ibid. Abercrombie, og.cit., 26. Kelly's, o2.cit. 1918, 10h. Abercrombie, op.cit. 27. T1.) ‘ K\\\ 9. In the ten year period a number of new businesses appeared, notably a builder, a tailor, a draper, a hair dresser, two surgeons, two boot and shoe- makers and a second grocer. If this was a genuine expansion, it was probably the result of two fnctors., First, there was a rapid growth of population in Bridge between 1821 and 1841 from 432 to 817; and secondly, additional business accrued to the village from the construction of the Bridge Poor Law Union Workhouse, the history of which is examined in a later chapter. Already by 1828 residents andtravellers could quench their thirsts at one of the two inns in Bridge. The White Horse inn, which is mentioned in both trade directories was once a "baiting", or halting house. Although it was hardly distant enough from Dover for a full stage, it was conveniently situated for a change of horses, certainly it is an old building, which is all too evident from the Tudor fireplace in the large bar, with its moulded beams above. (24) It served also as_the village Post Office, with the mail in 1828 arriving at eight in the morning and being dispatched at six in the evening. These were days when coaches and carriers to and from London, Canterbury and Dover passed daily through the village. (25) This chapter concludes by examining population growth in Bridge following the first national census in 1801. A simple subtraction of the number of burials from baptisms entered in the parish register suggests that population growth was very slow until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The 1801 census counted 325 inhabitants of whom 152 were males and 173 females. By 1811 the population had risen to 397, continuing an unbroken upward trend thereafter to 432 in 1821, to 543 in 1831, to 817 in 1841 and to 864 in 1851. The number of inhabited houses, families, occupations, males, females and total population as enumerated over the first four censuses are shown in the following table. (26) Inhabited Those ‘Year houses Families Employed in In Other Males Females Total agriculture Trade Occupations 1801 42 65 74 44 207 152 173 325 persons persons persons 1811 76 81 51 16 14 199 198 397 families families families 7 1821 86 99 37 36 26 202 230 432 families families families 1831 97 101 45 24 32 261 282 543 families families families Several points of interest can be found in these statistics, the ratio of houses to inhabitants, for instance, improved dramatically, so that there was one house for every 7.9 people in 1801 compared to one for every 5.3 persons in 1811, 1:5 in 1821 and l:5.5 in 1831. In 1811 males exceeded females in the population, having increased their numerical strength by 47 since 1801, but over the decade l81l~21 the number of males in the parish increased by only three, whereas the number of females rose by 32. Apart from including the possibility of male migration to and from neighbouring Canterbury during the years l80l to 1821 in Search of work,i’ females exceeded males in number in 1821 and 183i, as they had done in 1801, by virtue of the fact that girls were less likely to die in infancy compared to boys. 101 APPENDIX ABSOLUTE BURIAL 73101111113 1’-‘ORA 8111008 18011161101711 YEA1RS; 1560-1860. 7 1560 2 1636 5 1731 8 1736 1561 9 1637 3 1732 2 1737 1570 3 1638 3 1733 9 1788 1571 0 1639 1 1736 5 1789 1572 1 1660 0 1735 9 ’ 1790 1577 1 1661 3 1736 5 1791 1578 2 1552 1 H37 11 1792 1579 I 1666 5 1738 13 1793 1580 5 1667 4 1739 ‘ 5 1796 1583 3 1675 3 1740 6 1795 1586 6 1676 6 1761 9 1796 1587 6 1677 6 1742 17 ‘ 1797 1588 3 1678 5 1763 7 1798 1589 4 1679 16 1766 7 1799 1590 0 1680 9 1765 27 ‘ 1800 1591 3 1687 4 17275 6 1801 1592 3 1688 3 7717 7 1802 1593 3 1689 5 7713 2 1803 1594 . 3 1690 3 1749 3 1804 1595 0 1691 7 1750 10 1805 1596 3 1692 2 1751 6 1806 1597 8 1695 5 1752 4 1807 1598 0 1696 5 7753 3 1808 1599 4 1697 6 175,1 5 , 1809 1600 1 1698 2 7755 5 1810 1601 6 1699 5 1756 6 1811 1602 6 1700 8 7757 8 1812 1608 1 1701 7 7753 5 1813 1609 0 1702 A 1759 ,8 1816 1610 1 1703 8 7779 5 1815 1611 3 1706 10 1761 8 1816 1612 4 1707 6 1767 7 1817 1613 2 1708 2 7753 -7 1818 1614 1 1709 2 7761 7 1819 1615 3 1710 6 "1755 10 1820 1616 11 1711 5 1765 g. 1821 1617 5 1712 9 1767 9 1322 1618 8 1713 3 1763 77 1823 1619 - 5 1714 7 1769 6 1826 1620 4 1715 2 7770 16 1825 1621 2 1716 7 7771 8 1826 1622 4 1717 4 7772 70 1827 1623 1 1713 2 7773 6 1828 1624 5 1719 3 1774 70 1829 1625 6 1720 ‘ 3 1775 7 1830 1626 5 1721 8 7776 70 1831 1627 0 1722 2 7777 17 1832 1628 2 1723 7 7773 13 1833 1629 13 1724 11 7779 5 1836 «1630 3 1725 6‘ 7730 72 1835 1631 12 1726 2 1787 10 1836 1632 0 1727 11 7782 3 1837 1633 6 1728 10 1783 9 1838 1634 2 1729 11 7787 13 1839 1635 0 1730 6 1785 6 ‘ 1840 h‘w‘ #4 - e~u1m>u1a>O arm I-‘ I--‘P’ P‘ F‘ H‘ / (A 7ma\nU7uzh2~8&-U1u>«:~sa:a>Uu:~n>~1~1U1a:a-aa\u:~1a9u:~1905 1*" 9-‘ ©\DLfl-(>00?-*\C9U1\9*~JOOC)C7‘\\l ll. FOOTNOTES (1) E. Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, (2nd.edCanterbury, 1800), IX, 286—87. (2) F. T. Vine, ‘On Three Tumuli in Goreley Wood, near Bridge, and Canterbury’, Archaeologiéicantiana, XV (1883), 311-317. (3) F. Jenkins, ‘Researches and Discoveries in Kent‘, Archaeologia Cantiana, Lxx (1956), 248. (4) Non-conformists, as non-Anglicans, included Methodists who, as such, were not entered in the Anglican registers. (5) T. Hollingsworth, Historical Demography (1969), 142. (6) Registers from each parish were sent to the Bishop on Lady Day, March 25th, every year to be copied. (7) c. Creighton, A History of Epidemics in Britain, I (1955), 507-532, 646-692, and E. Jacob, The History of the Town ané Eort of Faversham, in the County of Kent (1774), lO8. (8) Hasted, 02. cit., 290. (9) A. P. Appleby, "Disease or Famine? Mortality in Cuberland and Westmorland, 1580-1640", Economic History Review, 2nd series, 26 (1973), 401-431. (10) Creighton, o2.cit., 536-37. (11) Anglican registers very rarely give entries referring to the cause of death, even in years when plague struck. (12) W. G. Hoskins, "Harvest Fluctuations in English Economic History, 1620- 1719", Agricultural History Review, 16 (1968), 29-30. (13) The History and Antiquities of Rochester and its Environs (1772), 352. (14) (W. Gostling, A Walk in and aboutte City of Canterbury, (5th Ed., Canterbury, 1804), 302. (15) Hasted, o2.cit., 287-89. (16) Ibid., 289. (17) Ibid., 289'90. (18) J. Newman, The Buildings of England, North-East and East Kent (1969), 154. (19) Hasted, o2.cit., 286. (20) Ibid., 286 (21) E. W. Parkin, "The Vanishing Houses of Kent", Archaeologia Cantiane, LXXIX (1964), 136-139. (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) 12“ Pigot and Co., London and Provinciai Naw Cammeréial Directory for 1828-9 (1829), 595. figgpleton and Co.'s Topographical Hiatory and Directory of Canterbury (1838) 56~57. G. M. Rainbird, Inns of Kent (1948)§ 16-17. Pigot and Co., 02. cit., 595. Census Reports, Abstracts of the Answers and Returns, British Parliamentary Papers, ‘ (1801), 146, (1811), 137, (1822), 137, (1831), 258-9. II: LANDOWNERSHP AND FARMING IN BRIDGE DURING THE 1840's: ' THE TITHE MAP AND APPORTIONMENT Miss Kim Davies "Kent is mainly an agricultural county, and not in anysense a manufacturing county, like Yorkshire or Lancashire" (1) In a rural community, such as Bridge in the mid nineteenth century, farming was the most important village "industry". The evidence of agrarian change, at that time, is to be found in landtax assessments, rentals, crop—returns, officially printed population censuses, parliamentary papers on the state of agriculture and tithe awards. (2) Tithe commutation played an import- ant part in Kentish agrarian history. Tithes, as a tenth part of the produce of the land, (3) were a payment exacted from the inhabitants of a parish for the maintenance of the church and its incumbents. In the first instance, tithes were paid to the rector (4) of the parish, but the Reformation saw the transfer of a large proportion of this revenue into the hands of laymen. Lay impropriators, as they were known, still held nearly one quarter of the net annual value of all tithes at the time of commutation. (5) In principle tithes were payable in kind, and were levied on all yearly profits. The medieval open-field system, typical of the Midlands, never prevailed extensively in Kent, and the enclosure of the county was largely complete before the sixteenth century. The parliamentary enclosure acts of the later eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries so far as Kent is concerned, invol- ved the enclosure and bringing into cultivation of limited areas of common~ land, but in those counties where the parliamentary enclosure movement was more significant, the opportunity was taken to convert tithes into an equivalent allotment of land. In an old enclosed county like Kent, almost every parish witnessed a tithe survey, (6) which resulted from the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. % of land area covered % of land area covered by Tithe Surveys by Enclosure Acts Kent 97.8 Nil Northampton 23.5 51.8 (7) THE UITHE (DMMUTATION ACT OF 1835 The payment of tithes in kind caused endless disputes between farmers and tithe owners so that "frequent disputes arose concerning the nature of titheable produce. when tithes were alloted to more than one owner further litigation began. It was asked what constituted the vicar's tithe and how much belonged to the rector and lay impropriator, should the tithe be collected by the owners and if so when, or should it be delivered by the farmer, and if so, to what place?" (8) Tithes were an imposition which bore most heavily on progressive farmers, whose increased yields involved them in increased tithe commitments. This reason, clearly, was in the mind of Lord John Russell as Home Secretary who, ,. i.__, 14. when introducing the Bill for the general commutation of tithes in 1836, described the system as "a discouragement to industry, a penalty on skill, a heavy mulct on those who expended the most capital and displayed the greatest skill in the cultivation of the land." (9) As well as being unpopular, tithes were administered inefficiently, so that a "tithe system", as such might not exist, which to some extent was the case in early nineteenth century Kent. Tithing practises became so complicated, so encumbered by local varieties of exemptions, prescriptions, extraordinary charges and moduses, (10) that one of John Boys's correspondents was forced to admit that, "What is meant by a fair commutation of tithes, I know not. An equivalent or commutation that would satisfy most parties is perhaps impossible". (11) In the event, Russell's formula, in the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, did satisfy most parties. The underlying principle replaced tithes in kind by a fluctuating money payment (12) known as corn rent, or the tithe rent charge, which was adjusted each year on the basis of a seven year national average price of wheat, barley and oats. In 1836 the septennial average price of wheat was 7s Oéd per bushell, as against 3s 11%d for barley and 2s 9d for cats. (13) The Act established Tithe Commissioners who encouraged voluntary agreements between tithe owners and payers, imposing Awards only on districts where litigation was in.progress. while critics of the Tithe Commissioners may have complained of inactivity and delay, 75% of the settlements in Kent were completed within six years of the confirmation of the first agree- ment. (14) By the end of 1848 tithe commutation in Kent was virtually complete. (15) The Act provided for a field—by—field survey of landownership, occupancy and use in each tithe district, which was duly recorded on the tithe maps and tithe apportionments. These were made in triplicate. The original was placed in the custody of the Public Record Office, while the other copies were deposited with the incumbents and church wardens of each at district, and were to be preserved in the parish chest, and in the relevant diocesan registry..(fl6) A series of apportionments and maps for East Kent is in the custody of the Cathedral Archives and Library in Canterbury. These records have been described as "the most complete record of the-agrarian landscape of any period". (17) THE TITHE MAPS Most of the Kentish maps, which reveal the names of their surveyors, were produced by men who were resident in London or in the county. The Bridge tithe map was drawn in 1838 by Mr. J.M. Davey of Canterbury (18) to a scale of three chains to one inch. He would have produced one or two plans for other parishes near Canterbury. Alltflemaps were inspected at the offices of the Tithe Commissioners, and those attaining a standard of accuracy and admissible in courts of law were affixed with the Commissioners’ seal. Only those maps which received this official seal of approval were regarded'as first-class maps; the remainder were second class. (19) Just over half the Kent maps passed the system of checks, which was well above the estimated national average of 2q%. (20) The Bridge map received an official seal on 18 February 1841. 15. It lacks, however, some features which are considered fundamental to a modern map Although the most serious omission is that of a key, it did delineate the ecclesiastical parish, and the boundaries of each tithe area. The latter corresponded most commonly with fields rather than with farms. Other topo— graphical features which were shown included roads, woods, streams, footpaths and buildings. Inhabited buildings were tinted red; the remainder were represented by shaded areas. Larger properties, such as Bridge Place, and some farms were named. Each tithe area was numbered, which allows it to be identified on the apportionment. THE APPQRTIONMENT This was prepared on parchment, in manuscript, and consisted of an opening "Articles of Agreement" (21), followed by the Schedule which was divided into eight 00 lumns . i) Landowners listed alphabetically. ii) Occupiers, either a landowner as "himself" or a named tenant. (iii) A number referring to the map. Because properties were listed by landowners numbers occur in no clear order. The surveyors numbered properties on the ground as they came to them. (iv) Name and description of property. Here is a primary source for field names, farms and house names, but in some cases field names were not given. 4 (V) State of cultivation, as a primary source for the study of land use, but limited in value because the nature of the crop was not indicated. (vi) Acreages in acres, rood and perches, with 40 perches = 1 rood and 4 roods = 1 acre. (vii) Rent charge in lieu of tithes. (viii) Remarks. At the end of the Schedule was a summary of the total acreages of each land- owner and occupier. (22) When using the Bridge apportionment as a source for reconstructing elements of the landscape c1840, someasassment of its accuracy must be attempted. In particular, three questions may be asked:— (i) How relevant are the summaries of parish land use in the preamble to the Schedule? (ii) Are the names entered in the ownership and occupation columns, those of the true owners and occupiers of land? (iii) What are the criteria upon which land was classified according to use? (23) Since land use statistics were frequently estimates, inaccuracies could occur through incorrect assessments. The summaries often referred to a time earlier than.the date of the award. Although the actual acreages were some~ times inaccurate, the proportions of arable, pasture, wood and the like were stated, it is believed, with reasonable accuracy. (24) Under the 1836 Act, an owner of land meant any person in the actual possession.of the receipts of the rents and profits of that land. Thus, it is almost certain that some mortgagees and "tenants—for—life" were assumed to be owners. In a reply to a question about whether the Tithe Commissioners investigated a persorfls interest in a parcel of land, William Blamire, a Tithe Commissioner, replied 16. "Oh dear noi" The names of occupierslisted in the apportionment, on the other hand, can be checked against parish rate—books, directories, or the census enumeration schedules of 1841. Land in terms of its cultivaitidiwas differentiated by observation. According to the Tithe Commutation Act, land which was judged to have been ploughed within the previous three years for crops, rotation grasses, or fallow, was to be regarded as arable. Grassland or leys, which had not been under the plough for three years, were to be recorded as grass. Even if these instructions were strictly followed, problems of interpretation remain in Kent, particularly, where convertible husbandry was practised in the mid nineteenth century. (25) The most impetant distinction was that made between arable and grassland. Farmers on their arable land paid tithes equivalent to about one fifth of the value of their rent, whereas on grass they paid less than one eighth. Lands devoted to hop grounds were charged with supplementary or extraordinary rent charges. BRIDGE AS PQRTRAYED IN THE TITHE MAP AND APPORTIONMENT The parishes of Bridge and Patrixbourne were designated as one tithe district by the Tithe Commissioners (26) Defining an area was the first task in commutation. Known as a tithe district it was distinguishedafrom a parish, since "what was frequently disputed was not the existyms of a parish, but the exact extent of its boundaries. This was particularly important for someone who was a tithe owner in one parish and a tithe payer elsewhere." (27) Few problems arose in Bridge. A meeting was held between the tithe owners and landowners on 22 October, 1838, and agreement was reached on 8 March 1839. Notice of appeal appeared in The Kent Herald on 7 July 1840. "The Draft Apportionment of the agreed Rent—charge with maps and costs of commutations, are deposited at the White Horse, Bridge, and the day of Appeal is on Thursday the 30th of July at the same place, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, Robert Lake, Appnxioner" (28)h All payments having been confirnedby 17 February 1841, the first payment of rent charge was to be effected by July 1841. The total sums agreed to be paid were:- (i) To the lay impropriator, Elizabeth, Dowager Marchioness of Conyngham £876 16s 0d (in lieu of tithes on corn and grain) £ 23 4s 0d (in lieu of Rectorial rent charge) £900 Os Cd (ii) To the Vicar, the Rev. Charles Hughes—Hallett 17. a. r. p . meme 6% 1 2o(zn Meadow or pasture 160 3 28 Woodl and 204 " 22 Hop grounds 90 " " Market gardens 14 1 23 (30) G1 ebe I? N H 1 134 3 1 3 While 32% of Kent was given over to grassland (31) this was clearly not the case in Bridge, which as part of a predominantly arable farming area had a ratio of arable: meadow or pasture of at least 4:1. Just over 58% of the total land area of Bridge was devoted to arable farming; only 14% was meadow or pasture. ; Parishes within a tithe district could display quite different charac- teristics of landownership, and in this respect there was a striking contrast between Bridge and Patrixbourne. Acrege No. of landowners In Bridge In Patrixbourne Under 1 28 3 1 4 - 2 5 1 3 3 - 4 1 1 5 __-_'__ *- Total 41 5 Total as a percentage 80% 23% o f l ando wners Bridge contained a large nuunber of landowners with holdings of less than one acre. It was a parish where owner occupation was common, especially since the summary listed 51 landowners for Bridge, as against 17 for Patrixbourne. 41 of Bridge's 51 landowners, which was 80% had holdings of less than five acres. Because owner occupiers represent an interesting group in Bridge, they justify more detailed study. Name Size of holding Occupation (if known) (32) a. r. p. ' AUS'I‘ll\T, DANIEL ~ 28 O 35 BRICE, RICHARD 2 1 12 Gentry CON YNYHAM 168 3 35 Nobility COLEGATE, FREDERIC " 1 26 Builder/Carpenter DAVIS, CHARLES " " 27 Grocer and dealer in sundries DU‘I‘1\TEILL, WILLMM 3 " 8 FISSENDEN, PETER 1 1 1 Gentry FAGE, SARAH " 1 28 FAGE, WILLIAM 1 3 28 Blacksmith GAMBRILL, WJLLIAM " " 16 GREGORY, REV. EDWARD 20 3 29 Clergy GUARDIANS or BRIDGE UNION 2 1 " HARTLEY, REV. JAMES 4 3 13 Clergy HOWARD, CHARLES 1 " 15 HODGES, CHARLES " " 3 Butcher HYDER, WILLIAM " " 23 HARDEMAN, SAMUEL " 1 32 Grocer and dealer in sundries JARVIS, HENRY I 9 3 15 189 Name Size of holding Occupation (ii: known) (32) a. r. p. JARVIS, RICHARD 3 *: 3*: Butcher SONDES, RT. HON THE LORD 4'? 3 28 Nobility SIVIITHSON, MILLER vv W 11 SICARD, MARY vv 1 11 TYSON, JOSEPH 2 " 3 VERRIER, WILLIAM v N 9 Plumber/glazier/painter WILLIAMS, WILLIAM " " 24 Brewer WHITE, THOMAS " " 15 Boot and shoemaker WESLEYAN, CHAPEL " " 12 Nine of those 27 listed landowners wer also tradesmen; two were clergymen and twowere institutions, namely the Bridge Guardians and the Wesleyan Chapel. Although the summary does not indicate the type of holding that each of these landowners had, the Schedule shows that Charles Hodges’ three perches consisted of a house and a garden, whilst William Faggis \~ holding amounted to a house, a shop and an area of pasture land. while the nobility possessed sizeable holdings, the general pattern of smaller holdings consisted of a house and garden. The progressively larger holdings usually contained subsidiary areas of cultivaition. A large landowner, such as the Marchioness of Conyngham, occupied a large acreage and yet also rented out large areas of land. Ten-different people occupied 598 acres which the Marchioness owned but did not occupy. Bridge was an area of compact small holdings, even among those tenants who did not own the land which they occupied. Landowner Occu ier No. Name and description. Quantity '"""'"" ""-JL"" a. r. p. Beckingham, Swan, Y45 Cottage and Garden " " 35 Louisa William Bear, Andrews, Y74 House and Garden " " 16 Catherine Eleanor Marchioness of Rickwood, Y2 Cottage and Garden " " 27 “* Conyngham John Colegate, Dyason, Y68 House and Garden " " 27 Prederic John Curtis, Shaxby, Y22 Houseyard and Premises ” " 9 George Charles Foord, Lawrence,‘ Y67 Cottage and Gardens ” " 15 Thomas John Phillpott, Martin, Y58 House and Garden " " 24 Stephen John It was infrequently the case that occupiers held land elsewhere in the parish. As and when this did occur, the tithe apportionment would rarely provide information showing the precise relationship between the separate portions of a total holding. In one obvious case of scattered occupancy the connection can be seen quite clearly. It conceined William Dutnell who owned some building ground in association with a rented hrickfield. Landowner Occupier fig. Name and description of land Conyngham Dutnell, William Y??3 House and Brickfield Dutnell, William Himself I10 Building Ground These two holdings were scatt cally separated. 19. ered only in the sense that they were geographi- Mixed farming is yet another theme which can be identified from the Bridge apportionment. tenant farmers. Those inhabitants who occupied larger holdings were There were no specialist farms, and land was being applied to all types of farming and other uses. Landowner Occupier fig. Name and description State of of land cultivation Barham, Rev Richardson, Y63 Bridge Farm Homestead Richard James Y64 Two acre meadow Pasture Y81 Six acres Arable Y82 Further sheeplands " Y95 Two and a half acres Pasture Y96 Union fields Arable Y9? Stour meadow Pasture Beckingham, Brice, Y148 Chalk pit Louisa Richard Y15O Woodlands Hops Y156 Little Hammel Pasture Y157 Barn meadow "3 Y158 Little Pett Farm’ Homestead Y159 Halfuacre meadow Pasture Y173 Great Fields Hops Y174 Rough Hill Arable Y175 Stable Field Arable Y183 Old Down Arable The high incidence of owner occupiers in Bridge points to a "closed" community, in the sense that land was largibrheld by local people. Larger Landowners, however, possessed holdings in the neighbouring parish of Patrixbourne as well as in Bridge. Quantity of land held Name In Bridge In Patrixbourne a. r. p. a. r. p. Barham, Rev. Richard 62 3 36 26 " 20 Beckingham, Louisa 177 2 20 4 3 19 Conyngham, Marchioness of 767 3 15 643 3 7 Sondes, Rt. Hon. the Lord 47 3 28 111 1 32 Kent had long been famous for its hops and Bridge contributed to their cultivation during the nineteenth century; indeed the favourable soils of East Kent, "mainly around Canterbury ... hadlong been given over to intensive forms of cultivation such as hop growing" (33) There was an extraordinary rent charge upon hop grounds of 12/s per imperial acre, which was listed among the "Articles of Agreement" at the beginning of the apportionment as follows. « State of cultivation guantity Amount of rent charge a0 rt pt Hops 5 3 5 Extraordinary charge on 5a. 3r. 5p. at 12/s per acre £3 9s 4:%.d- 20. This extraordinary charge ceased when lands to which it was applied were no longer hop gardens after commutation. Conversely, the extraordinary charge applied to lands which were converted to hop production. The gross rent for tithe owners was adjusted according to their involvement in hop cultivap tion. Under the 1836 Act an extraodinary charge could also be applied to market garden produce. Bridge had just over 14 acres of market gardens, but they were not subject to any extraordinary rent charge in the Schedule. CONCLUSION While the Bridge Tithe Apportionment and Map provides valuable infor- mation on land ownership and occupation, the information relates only to one point of time, and the picture provided of agriculture in the parish is incomplete in many respects. Information is lacking on soil types and courses of crop rotation. There exists, in addition, tithe files for each tithe district, which contain replies to a printed questionnaire, which in turn had been sent to all tithe payers before commutation. The files have not been consulted in the case of Bridge, since "where there was an Agreement between the parties, the files are not likely to contain very much of interest~ (34) A fuller picture of farming in Bridge demands the consultation of other doc—. umentany sources, such as probate inventories? or estate records which contain farming accounts or leases stipulating husbandry covenants. APPENDIX AND MAP RELATING TO APPORTIGNMENTS IN BRIDGE AND PATRIXBOURNE Landowner Occupier fig. Name and description State of Quantity of lands and premises cultivation a. r. p. Garner Boyack Y7 House and Garden " " 39 Harriet Alexander Cfieirs of) Garner Wilson Y8 House and Garden " "I 13 k Harriet Williana I (Heirs of) Fissenden Paul Y13 House and Garden " " 9 Peter Samuel Conyngham Denne , Y15 Bridge Field Arable 7 2 4 Marchioness of George Conyngham Brice Y16 The Park Pasture 4 2 19 Marchioness of Richard Fissenden Himself Y17 — Pasture " 3 28 Peter Fissenden Price James Y18 Four Houses and Gardens " 1 4 Peter and Others Fags Himself Y24 — Pasture 1 3 4 William Beckingham Horn Y44 Bourn Paddock Pasture 39 2 8 Louisa Henry T2‘ '- . \‘ ‘ C‘ ||n~5g'_L‘-\ I*.u.un-.-.um- " -- cf 1-. Hum) s.~u....| J-.\' ‘ s. .’ ;vu;n.-/ N _ \ \/~ V r . I ..-«.I ;_,~\ ;-.u«- , 1 ~ -, ‘Vg .” \. Y_f ’ X». am: I 4.. 0 sxre-.-.-wmuéh \’\"’O‘«~I|'|:IA><':n-1/1‘ r (3?‘.XI.-- 2 '/ " " ‘ 4 Mil :~ I“ é\ C’-“‘»,;g{z . A /. ,1 . - > K) I .1‘ ’ _ W "-335; /, ‘V /A /’ A. . ' _r"""mI{:j \_‘ ~» \(&/-«'...>,= /fig,‘ 3 ‘/ 3‘ ’ ' . ‘ vs 7 II’--M-1\'r ‘ \ .» ‘; r . / , \{ \ . E.» :1) Q .1 * 2;‘; .-‘s' ‘-~-’ : 57' i ,. s .32 ' 1: L -.=.= . ': x\\ C :. mm H\\\ /, '5 ‘ ////, :: ""4" />_\1 so-.*.<\ Landowner Hardeman William Hardeman William Tritton Ann Tritton Ann Neal James Barham‘ Rev. Richard Barham Rev. Richard Hodges Charles Foord Thomas Golegate Frederic Fags Sarah Marsh Richard Keiler Maria Sicard Mary Gambrill William Guardians of Bridge Union Guardians of Bridge Union Barham Occupier Horton John and another Goodman Thomas and others Williams William Duckett Thomas May Thomas and Four others Richardson James Richardson James Himself Iawrence John and others Himself and Dyason John Eaden Edward and another Callard Thomas Hooker Daniel Herself and another Himself Themselves Themselves Richardson Y49 Y53 Y6O Y61 Y62 Y63 Y64 Y65 Y67 Y68 Y69 Y7O Y72 Y73 Y76 Y92 Y95 Y95 N) gm; a Name and description State of Quantity of lands and premsies cultivation. a, r, p, Two Houses and Gardens " " 16 Four Cottages and Gardens " " 11 Two Houses and Gardens " " 20 Houses and Gardens " " 28 Five Cottages and Gardens " ” 33 Bridge Farm Homestead " 5 19 Two Acre Meadow Pasture 1 5 15 House and Premises " " 3 Four Cottages and Gardens ” " 15 House, Yard and Premises " ” 59 Two Cottages and Gardens ” " 11 House and Garden " ” 15 House and Garden " " 8 Two Houses and Gardens " 1 11 House and Garden " " 16 Union Spot Arable " 3 25 Union House Two and a Half Acres‘ Pasturr landowner Barham Rev. Richard Barham Rev. Richard Conyngham Marchioness of Conyngham Marchioness of Gonyngham Marchioness of Beckingham Iouisa Beckingham Iouisa Beckingham Iouisa Beckingham Iouisa Conyngham Marchioness of Conyngham Marchioness of Patrixbourne Conyngham Marchioness of Conyngham Marchioness of Conyngham Marchioness of Conyngham Marchioness of Occugier Richardson James Richardson James Brice Richard Brice Richard Brice Richard Rutter Ann and others Steed John Steed John Steed John Herself Brice Richard Hopper William and another Brice Richard Brice Richard Herself .N_°- Y96 Y97 Y102 Y103 Y104 Y105 Y106 Y107 Y109 Y11O Y111 X78 X79 ,‘ :2. Name and description State of Quantity of lands and premises cultivation a. r. p. Union Fields Arable 5 1 31 Stour Meadow Pasture 2 3 27 Bridge Place Meadow Pasture 9 1 1 Bridge Place Homestead 1 2 9 The Slip Pasture " 3 30 Two Cottages and Gardens " 2 16 Dog Kennel Meadow Pasture 3 1 37 Dog Kennel Meadow Pasture 1 " 30 Dog Kennel Meadow V Pasture 3 1 3 Bourn Hop Ground Hope 17 3 " Bridge Place Pasture Pasture 6 3 20 3553(3) Cottages and Gardens " 1 12 Part of Bifrons Bark Pasture 12 2 6 Soothouse Meadow Pasture 3 " 11 Mill Plantation Plantation 5 " 20 X81 E13 (3) 2%) (6) E123 (15) 14 16 17 18 (19) E32’) .23, FOOTNOTES George F. Bosworth, County Geographies: Kent (Cambridge, 1909), 67 J. Thirsk, "The Content and Sources of English Agrarian History after 15oov, The Agricultural History Review, III (1955), 77 Tithes were of three kinds: (i) predial, on agricultural crops, (ii) mixed, on the increase of farm stock, and (iii) personal, from mills and factories. The Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 related mainly to predial tithes. A rector may have been a bishop, prioress, monastery, nunnery or college. H.C. Prince, "The Tithe Surveys of the Mid Nineteenth Century", The Agricultural History Review, VII (1959), 15 Apportionments and maps are extant for almost all of the tithe districts of Kent. 862,638 acres, or 86.8% of the surface area of the county, at the time of the tithe surveys, were subject to tithes. In all but one parish (Goodnestone—next—Wingham) the use and extent of tithe free land are described in the Kent tithe surveys. This means that in total, they contain a record of the ownership, occupiers and use of 974,706 acres of land, amounting to 98.1% of the surface area of Kent c 1840, according to R.J.P. Kain, "The Tithe Commutation Surveys", Archaelogia Cantiana, LXXXIX (1974), 104-105. Gilbert Slater, The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields (1907), 189 Prince op. cit., 15 _ The Secretary of the Tithe Redemption Commission, "The Records of the Tithe Redemption Office”, The Journal of the Society of Archivists, I (1957), 152 Tithes converted to fixed annual moneypayments. A modus was not strictly equivalent to a tithe payment, which varied from year to year, according to the amount and value of farm produce. Kain, op. cit., 102 . Until the Tithe Act of 1891, payment of rentcharge was the occupiers liability . Prince, op. cit., 17. The amount of corn rent was to be obtained by dividing £100 of tithes into three equal portions of £33 6s 8d, cal- culating how much wheat, barley and oats could be brought with each portion, and multiplying these quantities by the average price in succeeding years. Kain, op. cit., 106 Ibid., 102 I5id., 117 Prince, op. cit., 14 Jacob Mills Davey, 43, St. George's St. is listed as an Auctioneer or Appraiser (also a Broker) in Stapletcn and Co's Topographical History and Directory of Canterbury (1838), 15. Also on p. 29 as a Surveyor. In many parishes landowners tried to save themselves some of the cost of a new survey by presenting Assistant Commissioners with maps drawn originally for other purposes, such as poor law assessment. Unsealed maps consequently constitute a very mixed collection, and the only way in which accuracy could be proved was by selecting lines on a map and measuring them on the ground, but Tithe Commissioners could neither meet the costs of such operations nor impose the necessary expenses on the responsible parties. Kain, op. cit., 113 Providing details of the area of the parish, the area subject to tithes, indicati how u - ~. ~ - ‘ - »~ ~ ~ A- n An ¢ - - -- 24¢ 22 L.M. Mflflbfifi "Tithe Apportionments and Maps", Histor , 54 (1969), 70 23 Kain, Op. Cit., 107 24 Ibid., 108 25 Ibid., 109 26 Canterbury Cathedral library and Archives, B 29 A. 27 Prince, 0 cit., 17 28 The Kent Herald, 7 July 1840, 2G 29 East Kent was predominantly an arable farming area, E. Melling, Kentish Sources: Aspects of Agriculture and industry (Maidstone, 1961),1 (50) Gardens and market gardens were not clearly distinguished in the main part of the schedule. (31) E.J.P. Kain, "Tithe Surveys and the Study of Land Occupation", Eng Local Historian, X11 (2) (1976), as (32) Pigot and 00's Royal, National and Commercial Directory and Topography (1840). (33) D. Harvey, "Fruit Growing in Kent in the Nineteenth Century“, in ed. N. Roake and J. Whyman, Essays in Kentish History (1973), 224 (54) The Secretary of the Tithe Redemption Commission, op. cit., 156 III: BRIDGE: AS PORTRAYED BY CENSUS MATERIAL 1851-1871: AN INTRODUCTION Mrs. Zofia Wells The material used for this and for the next three chapters has been drawn from the census enumerators’ schedules for 1851, (1) 1861 (2) and 1871 (3) They were compiled from census forms which had been issued to every householder for completion on a specific census night, which was in 1851, March 31st; in 1861, April 8th; in 1871, April 3rd. The resulting schedules are open to public inspection after a lapse of 100 years. The returns for Bridge exist on.microfilm in the Beaney Library in Canterbury. Before 1851 the information contained on these sheets is of limited value, so that the 1841 schedules, which have not been consulted for this study, listed names, approximate ages, sex, professions, trades, employed or of independent means, and where born: in the same county, or in Scotland, Ireland, or foreign parts. Subsequently for 1851, 1861 and 1871 the following headings were used: 1. Road,Street and name of house, but for 1851 and 1861 these details are incomplete, with only Petts Bottom, Bridge Hill and Bridge Village being specified. 2. The number of hnn.qe=..q ant? xxrha-H«mvr- +1m:nr “- (“Q C}\ e Other difficulties arise because census statistics relate to one specific night in every ten years. Only those persons who were resident in households or institutions on the census night were recorded, so that it will never be known how many people were absent on that particular night. Even a few absentees in a small community can affect calculations of family and household size, with parents or children possibly visiting relations elsewhere. Similarly occupational analysis can likewise be affected, particularly since the numbers within each category were invariably low in a small village. Despite these problems census material represents a rich source of historical information and from analysing successive schedules changing patterns of community structure and life can be traced. FOOTNOTES 1. 13.3.0. 974/H.o. 107/1625. 2. 12.3.0. 3.0.. 9/518. 3. 19.3.0. R.G. 10/965. 4. A. Rogers, Approaches to Local History (2nd. Ed., 1977), 37. 5. _:_i___‘pLi_c_1_.‘, 58. 27. IV: BRIDGE: AS PORTRAYED BY CENSUS MATERIAL 1851-1871: FAMILY STRUCTURE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE Miss K.S.E. Chandler INTRODUCTION Census data from 1851 to 1871 provides an interesting insight into the structure and composition of households in Bridge. From this source the local historian can calculate the average number of children, servants, lodgers and relatives to be found in each household. Also revealed is the type of ;family which could support these various categories of people. Furthermore, it is*possible to assess such general trends as changing family size, or the wealth of the village community, as measured by the number of servants which it could support. Lodgers and Visitors indicate family and social contacts with the world outside Bridge. Hopefully from the censuses which were conducted between 1851 and 1871 a reasonable picture of household and family life in Bridge can be built up. In order to analyse the household unit in any meaningful way, it is necessary to break it down into more manageable categories. Households can be distinguished from families which in turn subdivide into the nuclear and extended family. A nuclear family includes only parents and children whereas an extended family contains other relatives, such as grandparents or maiden aunts. All families constitute households which may or may not include servants, lodgers and visitors. THE NUCLEAR FAMILY Nearly all household units living in Victorian Bridge were nuclear families of parents and children. Single member households or households of brothers and sisters, have been excluded from this analysis of the nuclear family. As childless families their inclusion lowers the average number of children per family. This represents no more than a minor adjustment since such families were few in number and never formed more than 5.4% of the total number of households. Having dealt with this anomalous group, the average size of the nuclear family can be calculated for each year of the census, paying particular attention to children who were an important element in the population and family structure of mid-nineteenth century Bridge. Over the years 1851 to 1871 Bridge experienced a rise in population, which was associated with an increasing number of households and a larger size of nuclear family, as indicated in Table 1. Table 1 1851 1861 1871 Total population 625 727 790 Number of households 134 148 167 Average size of nuclear family 3.88 3.93 4.03 Such trends were nationwide. In Bridge itself the number of parents per nuclear family remained fairly constant at about 1.77. An average of two parents for all households would not be obtained on account of single parent families, as and when one parent had died or had chosen to live elsewhere. Table 2 shows how the number of children per nuclear family rose to‘a peak 28. of 2.25 in 1871. This and other figures do not confirm the general impression Table 2 1851 1861 1871 Average number of parents per nuclear family 1.84 1.77 1.78 Average number of children per nuclear family 2.04 2.16 2.25 Average number of children per nuclear family (excluding 2.86 3 3.17 childless nuclear families) that Victorian families were very large since when all the childless families are excluded from any calculations, the mean for 1871 did not rise above 3.17.‘ Bridge was by no means unusual in having relatively small families. Indeed, generally the impression of large families is somewhat erroneous, as noted by several writers, including Dr. Armstrong, in his social study of York over the first half of the nineteenth century. (1) Moving away from general trends, numbers of children per family can be related to the ages of parents and to the occupations of heads of households. Some families were childless. Table 3 touches on childless nuclear families, Table 3 Childless nuclear families Number Percentage of nuclear families 1851 31 28.9% 1861 40 27.8% 1871 46 29 °/o which in total increased between 1851 and 1871 while remaining fairly constant I at about 28% of all nuclear families. Table 4 shows that 45% of childless families occurred where the head of the household was sixty years or over. -2 It would be wrong however, to suppose that such families had never raised Table 4 Childless families where the head of the household was 60 years + Number Percentage of childless families 1851 20 54% 1861 13 32.5% 1871 23 50% children, since in many cases their sons and daughters would have left home already either to get married or to find employment elsewhere. That this was so is evident from comparing families over the three census years. During the two decades falling between 1851 and 1871 some children moved away to set up their own homes both in Bridge and elsewhere. Childless families also occurred, where the head of the household was either a widow or widower. The significance of this fact is illustrated in Table 5. Inevitably there is some overlap between the figures portrayed in, Table 5 Childless families where the head of the household was widowed Number Percentage of childless families 1851 8 21.8% 1861 9 A 22.5% 1871 6 13% 29. Tables 4 and 5 in the sense that many widowed parents had passed their sixtieth birthday. At least a proportion of both groups would have experienced children leaving home. No doubt some children had moved away as and when it became more difficult for their mothers or fathers to support them. A majority of the remaining families with no children had heads of households who were in their late fifties or twenties and early thirties, in which case either their families had grown up, or the couple had recently married. Yet there were also examples of couples in their prime of life who had no children, possibly because family limitation was being exercised. From the census statistics it can be seen that a larger proportion of landed and skilled trading families had none or fewer children, and certainly they were among those social groups who were the first to benefit from the spread of birth control techniques. Additionally there were examples of very mobile couples, who were not tied to one locality by any necessity to raise children. Childlessness would also arise where one of the parents was infertile or where a parent had a 'living—in‘ job as a domestic servant. Family size varied from one household to another in Victorian Bridge. Although there were large families of four or more children they comprised no more than one quarter of the nuclear families. In another sense, however, this 25% was highly significant, because it accounted for nearly 61% of the total number of children in the village averaged at over the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s, which is clearly a considerable proportion. The details are set out statistically in Table 6. Table 6 Children in families of 4 + children Number Percentage of all children 1851 149 56.7% 1861 179 57 % 1871 245 69 % An even higher average percentage than 61% would have resulted had some families not sent their children away to become 'living—in‘ servants at an early age. Children from large labouring and agricultural families were the most likely to leave home early. Labourers and agricultural workers headed a considerable proportion of the larger families of Bridge between 1851 and 1871. They were least likely to be in a good financial position to support large numbers of children. Census figures, with respect to large families can underestimate the total number of children having been born into such families, with parents being capable of having more children, and with some children having died in infancy or having gone into domestic service or apprenticeship outside the family home. It was because agricultural labourers formed the largest single occupation in Bridge, that in terms of sheer numbers they featured so strongly in the category of larger families. Their predominance in this respect was such that they did not feature so frequently with respect to smaller families. Low incomes for them did not act as a restra‘“‘ ‘“ 50. Table 7 Agricultural labourers‘ families with 4 + children Number % of families with 4 + children 4 Children 1851 —- 4 28.6% 1861 —- 8 66.7% 1871 — 6 30% 5 children 7 70% 2 28.6% 7 54% 6 Children 2 50% 6 60% 6 75% 7 children 2 50% 2 70% 2 50% Children, possibly in a single parent family since there was no reference to her husband. All these families with more than seven children were associated with labouring occupations. None of them represented affluent tradesmen or craftsmen, who would have been better placed financially to support such large families. It was one of the contradictions of Victorian England that those who could least afford to support large families often had most children. Conditions were of course healthier in the countryside, as one factor among others helping to reduce death and in particular infant mortality rates. Compared to the nineteenth century, children today are more expensive to support in terms of food, clothing and education, and their dependence on parents can extend over twenty years, during which time they contribute little or nothing to the family income. Very different was the position in the nineteenth century when children were looked upon as an investment for old age. Children who were born into labouring families in Bridge in or before 1851 would be expected, at quite an early age, to seek gainful employment, so as to earn money and increase the wealth of the family unit. Depending on how long they stayed in the house, they might support their parents in old age. Bearing such facts in mind, it is hardly surprising to discover that it was the labouring classes who, on the whole, had the largest families. From studies of particular families it is possible to find out at what .1 intervals parents were having children. There were seven children in the Philpott family for instance in 1861. They were aged seventeen, fifteen, fourteen, twelve, eight, six and two. Assuming that Mr. and Mrs. Philpott had their first children during their first year of marriage, which was quite usual, then they would have been aged thirty and twenty—two respectively when they were married. Mrs. Philpott, on the evidence of surviving children, had given birth to a child almost every other year, with three years repre- senting the longest period without a new baby being born. Such a gap might have resulted from family planning or from a baby having died at birth or early infancy, at a time when infant mortality was extremely high. The Philpotts in terms of the number and spacing of births were typical of many families throughout England and Wales in the middle of the nineteenth century. While the census from 1841 onwards provides accurate figures on the number of children living at home, it does not directly indicate the possibility that quite young children were employed and living elsewhere as servants. This can be shown to have happened, however, by comparing surnames as between families residing in Bridge with domestic servants living in other households, looking also at such additional evidence as date and place of birth. There were servants employed in Bridge who had been born into particular families. In 1861, for instance, eleven servants possessed identical surnames to Bridge families, seven of whom were children of Bridge families. The other four 31. being somewhat older were related in some other way to families living in the village. In 1861 Captain Winter, a retired army officer, employed a 16 year old locally born girl, Elizabeth Griggs as a housemaid, who very likely was the daughter of Mr. Griggs, the village blacksmith. Not only had all his children been born in Bridge but the census for that year reveals a suitable gap in the ages of his other children, at 19, 13, 11, 8, 5 and 2 into which the girl would have fitted. Another similar example concerned a twenty—three year old, Mary Austin, who had been born in Lydd, and who was one of two daughters of a forty—two year old widow, Mrs. Austin. The latter's second daughter aged twenty had also been born in Lydd. Possibly the eldest sister had no alternative but to go out to work, since her mother was a widow, with no occupation, she could not afford to have a twenty—three year old dependent on her hands. In the case of older servants, they were often the unmarried brothers and sisters of families who were living in Bridge, while in the specific case of Mr. Vinson who at 58 was employed as a butcher by Mrs. Gregory, he was probably married to Mrs. Vinson who was living elsewhere in the village with her two children. A close examination of census data shows that the total size of any family could differ from an enumerated family unit, as it included only those members who were actually living in the household at the time. In concluding this section on nuclear families in Bridge, while the number of children to families increased very slightly, at no time between 1851 and 1871 did the average number of people in this basic household unit rise much above the level of four. Families exceeding this norm were limited largely to the labouring classes. It has been emphasised that the children enumerated in households were those living at home. Over this twenty year period some children inevitably left the family home to reside elsewhere. Family size varied according to the differing age of parents so that those who were aged thirty had experienced less opportunity to have as many children as at the age of forty. Commonly children were born at regular intervals every year or every other year, yet Table 8 shows that there was no consistent correlation between family size and father's age. If anything families increased in size as father's age diminished. Whilst each census yields plenty of statistics there are few positive clues as to how and why they appear as they did. Table 8 Average age of fathers with respect to family size 1851 1861 1871 3 children 46.1 yr. 47.1 yr. 54.5 yr. 4 children 48.6 44 44 5 children 43.4 42 46.9 6 children 35.5 46 44 7 children 41 45 _ 43 THE EXTENDED FAMILY The nuclear family broadens out into the extended family as and when other relatives were living in the same household. It is commonly asserted that prior to industrialization the patriarchal family predominated in rural society, and was "marked by strong ties between the generations, living together or proximately in a state of stable self sufficiency." (2) F .,.,_______ 52. Industrialization, on the other hand, introduced the transient unstable family. Victorian Bridge existed in a rural setting and was in no sense an industrialized community like many towns or villages in the Midlands. However the village was modernising and changing its character to some extent during this period and it displayed little evidence of a patriarchal system. Table 9 shows that between 1851 and 1871 the number of relatives per 100 households never exceeded 7.7. Table 9 Number of relatives per 100 households 1851 5.6 1861 7.7 1871 7.08 Table 10 illustrates how extended families as a proportion of households never exceeded 27%. Family relatives were not concentrated in just a few households but were spread very thinly amongst several families in Bridge. Table 10 Extended Families Number % of all households 1851 24 , 17.9% 1861 34 22.9% 1871 43 27.2% Table 11 reveals that of all extended families in 1851, 70% had only one relative living with them. The percentages for 1861 and 1871 were higher still. Of the remaining relatives the majority were to be found in groups of two or three and in only one exceptional instance in 1861 was there a family containing six other relatives, namely a daughter—in—law and five grandchildren. Relatives who were taken into families ranged from grand- children or parents to aunts—in—law. Only 26% were ”in—laws”, while grand- children, brothers and sisters comprised the most frequently enumerated relations residing as members of extended families in Bridge. Table 11 Households with only one relative E Number % of extended families 1851 17 70.8% 1861 25 73.5% 1871 35 81.4% Families who had relations living with them were commonly headed by skilled or semi—skilled men and contained few children, as is shown in Table 12. It mattered little how poor the head of the household was since in 1851 a widowed pauper of seventy—two had her widowed daughter—in—law and three grandchildren staying with her. Trading as a grocer in Bridge in 1861, Mr. Davis at the age of twenty—eight was married with no children but he had Table 12 - The number of children in extended families g 1851 1861 1871 TOTAL 0 children 2 2 4 8 1 Child 1 3 3 7 2 children 2 1 1 4 3 children 1 O O 1 4 children 1 1 O 2 35. living with him his mother, a sister and a nephew, and so he had a typically extended family. Generally speaking the extended family was not a common phenomenon in Bridge and between 1851 and 1871 had mostly only one relation living with them. As a rule they were not of the poorest kind, the head of the household often being a labouring man with no children, or a prosperous craftsman, such as a watohmaker or a wheelwright. HOUSEHOLDS WITH DOMESTIC SERVANTS Only some nuclear and extended families could afford to employ domestic servants who from first impressions appear to have constituted an important group in the Village community. Almost 24% of all households in Bridge in 1851 contained servants compared to only 20% in 1861 and 1871, as shown in Table 13. Table 13 Households with Servants Number % of households 1851 32 23.8% 1851 31 20.9% 1871 34 20.3% Table 14 illustrates how in 1851 servants constituted an important proportion of the workforce, more so than in 1861 or 1871. The fact that domestic servants were quite numerous in Bridge might suggest a fairly wealthy village, for people who maintained servants paid them wages and had to feed and house them_ In the matter of affording or employing resident domestic servants there were several limiting factors. Of those Bridge households who could afford servants, well over 50% employed no more than one servant during the 1850s and 1860s as Table 15 demonstrates. In some households the servants employed were actually relatives of the family, such as brothers or sisters who paid for their food and lodging by working in the house. A substantial proportion of the servants who were employed were both young and unskilled, for which reasons they were only paid low wages. It was only a minority of wealthy households who could afford more than one domestic servant. Taking these limitations into conside- vration warns against exaggerating the wealth of Bridge from the point of View of domestic service employment. Even when the number of domestic servants was at its peak none were being employed in almost 80% of Bridge households. Table 14 Total Number of Servants Number % of working population 1851 57 9.12% 1861 60 8.26% 1871 60 7.59% Table 15 , Number of Households with One Servant Number % of all households with servants 1851 19 59.4% 1861 20 64.5% 1871 17 50% 54¢ The census enumeration schedules indicate the sex, ages, duties and employers of domestic servants, helping thereby to recreate the social structure of the servant class. For Bridge 1861 has been selected as a sample year and several interesting features are revealed, commencing with a predominance of female domestic servants, who accounted for 41 (68%) out of 60 servants, who were then being employed in the village. An overwhelming majority of 52 (or 86.6%) were single. Three of the remaining eight were widows. Rarely were married people employed as domestic servants and on contemplating marriage they were expected to leave their position. It is also not surprising to discover that whereas 35% of the servants were aged thirty years and over, 45% were twenty years of age or under. Having determined that the typical servant in Victorian Bridge was female, single and under the age of twenty, who in 1861 were the employers of domestic servants? Heads of households who employed only one servant varied from agricultural labourers to men of independent means. A single servant was engaged at a general level to perform all manner of work. Heads /~\ of households who employed two or more servants were invariably of independent means, owned land or were professional men, successful tradesmen or clergymen and army officers. In 1861 of five families who employed two servants a piece all fall into one of the above categories, as is shown in Table 16. Table 16 Families employing 2 servants in 1861 LANSBERRY — a landholder EYERS — a publican BARTER - a butcher HORNSBY — a licensed victualler SICARD — a surgeon Table 17 illustrates how only two households employed three servants, who Very likely assisted with the running of the business, while living with the families who employed them. Three families employed four servants. Table 17 Families employing 3 servants in 1861 COLLINS — a farmer of 318 acres MUTTON — a brewer They were headed by a curate and two gentlemen of independent means, as enumerated in Table 18. Table 18 Families employing 4 servants in 1861 ALDWORTH — curate EDLING — tenure landholder HAMMOND — fundholder Throughout the twenty years falling between 1851 and 1871 there were only seven households with more than four domestic servants, three of which concerned the same families, one of whom was a widow, landed proprietor and fundholder, Mrs. Gregory, who had engaged between seven and eight. Other heads of households who employed more than four servants included a farmer, a retired Army Captain, a landowner and a trainer of racehorses, two of whose servants were apprentices. 35. For many families, servants were clearly a great luxury and as such were confined to the more prosperous households in Bridge. As and when more than four servants were employed, substantial incomes or wealth were implied. Mrs. Gregory stood among the very wealthy families who Could afford to engage servants for particular tasks. Her butler had overall charge of all the servants and waited upon the mistress of the house at the dining table. Her food was prepared for her by a resident cock. She employed a lady's maid to superintend her wardrobe, while a governess was responsible for the children's education and general upbringing. These were all specialized tasks which involved some responsibility, as opposed to the kitchen maid, the footman, the groom, the housemaid, the page and the gardener, whose duties were more menial and less specialized. Single servants in less well off households functioned as general servants or ‘housekeepers’, whose responsibilities could range from house work to opening the front door. As a general rule the wealthier a household the more servants and the greater the division of labour it could afford. A person who was employed solely to be a cock, was more experienced and specialized than a general servant or kitchen maid. Some tradesmen also employed servants for tasks which were specific to their own trades, so that Mr. Eyers who was an innkeeper in 1861 employed a stable boy and a Coachman. Since the majority of servants were employed in tasks of a general nature, requiring no great skills, they were employed from within Bridge or its environs, whereas cooks or governesses might be sought from further afield and by such means as advertizing in the provincial or national press. Table 19 shows how in 1861 55% of the domestic servants working in Bridge had been born either in or within five miles of the village. 23% had been Table 19 The Origins of servants working in Bridge in 1861 Number % of servants Born in Bridge 7 11.7% Born within 5 miles 26 43.3% 36‘ HOUSEHOLDS WI TH LODGERS Lodgers were often at the opposite extreme from domestic servants as yet another component of Victorian households for many were ‘contractural borders‘ (3). At no time did they represent a significant proportion of the total population of Bridge remaining fairly constant about 3%, as shown in Table 20. Table 21 further shows how only in 1861 did families in Bridge offering accommodation to lodgers approach 13.5%, although 1861, Table 20 Numbers of Lodgers Number % of the population 1851 20 3.2% 1861 36 4.4% 1871 24 3.03% compared to 1851 and 1871 was an exceptional year. (4) All these percentages were considerably lower than the 21.3% which Dr. Armstrong calculates for York in 1851. (5) Lodgers although few in number are worthy of study, particularly with respect to their occupations and who took them in. The average Bridge lodger of 1861 was a male. Indeed, 92% were men, and there were only three female lodgers, two of whom were widows, the third being a fourteen year old boarding scholar. Thirty or 83.3% of the lodgers were single, 11% were widowed, and two were married. As to occupations, most were labourers or semi—skilled working men and significantly the occupation of the head of the household often corresponded to that of his lodgers, suggesting thereby that he was their employer. On the other hand, this was not always the case, so that in 1861 the curate of Bridge and the Clerk to the Guardians were also lodgers. Almost inevitably most of the lodgers had migrated into the area. So that for 1861, Table 22 reveals how only Table 21 Households with Lodgers Number % of the population 1851 11 8.2% 1861 20 13.5% 1871 15 8.9% Table 22 _ Origins of Lodgers in 1861 Number % of lodgers Bridge 2 5.5% From within 5 miles 9 25% From Kent 7 19.4% Elsewhere 18 50% two lodgers (5.5%) had originated from Bridge, whilst 50% had been born outside Kent in counties as far away as Derbyshire, Hampshire or Suffolk. The typical lodger residing in Bridge between 1851 and 1871 was male, single, working in an unskilled or semi—skilled job and employed sometimes by the head of the household in which he was living. There remains however the question who took in lodgers and why? Often they resided with families who were at the bottom end of the income ladder who accepted lodgers to eke out a 37. basic living. As and when families took in lodgers, but had no children of their own to support they were employing spare accommodation of theirs to bring in more money. In 1861 of twenty people who accommodated lodgers, seven had no children and six families had one. It is clear that families with few children whose heads were often in their late fifties or sixties, decided to take someone in if only to make full use of the family cottage and to supplement the family income, which would be declining anyhow as old age reduced the main breadwinner's earning power. Widows commonly accommo_ dated lodgers to provide extra income, or to support their children. Over the three census years under consideration there was not one landed family or household of independant means who took in a lodger. Finally and usually there was only one lodger per household and it was only in 1861 that as many as seven instances of lodgers residing in groups of three occurred, as shown in Table 23. Table 23 Number of lodgers per household and % per total number of lodgers 1851 1861 1871 1 Lodger 5 45.5% 11 55% 10 71.4% 2 Lodgers 5 45.5% 2 10% 2 14.3% 3 Lodgers 1 9% 7 35% 2 14.3% At that time there was a sudden upsurge in the employment of bricklayers, carpenters and others in the building trade, for whom accommodation had to be found in the Village. The next chapter explains how this situation arose from the restoration of Bridge Church coupled with the construction of the London, Chatham and Dover railway between Canterbury and Dover. HOUSEHOLD S WITH VIS ITORS Possible visitors staying in the village on the day when the census was taken constitute the final component of households, as enumerated between 1851 and 1871. They represented not only a very tiny part of the total population but according to Table 24 very few households were entertaining visitors either in 1851, 1861 or 1871. Table 24 Number of Visitors Number of Households with Visitors Number % of total population Number % of households 1851 11 3.9% 10 7.5% 1861 11 1.5% 10 6.8% 1871 7 0.9% 7 /1 "°/ 58. It is impossible to determine for what reasons these people were visiting Bridge. The majority were no doubt purely visitors who were paying social calls or visiting relatives. There are no clues as to how long they stayed. One of the 1851 visitors was probably the father of the head of the household where he was staying. Another was an eleven year old scholar, born in Dover who was receiving education in Bridge or visiting a friend. Whom and why people were visiting remain matters of mystery, except that they were either quite young (under twenty years of age) or quite elderly and predominantly they were women who were unlikely to be gainfully occupied and as such were genuine visitors, rather than paying guests. THE AGE STRUCTURE OF VICTORIAN BRIDGE Each successive census between 1841 and 1871 yields interesting and valuable information on the age structure of Victorian towns and villages. Comparisons over this period show whether a community on average was growing older or younger. Also revealed are numbers and proportions of those who were either too old or too young to support themselves. Tar Bridge Table 25 shows how between 1851 and 1871 the percentage of the population, which was 60 years of age and over increases from 10.5% to 12.2% thereby indicating a very small rise in the number of older people who, if not still employed, were ageing dependants living in the village. A tendency towards longevity resulted from diatory, medical and environmental improvements which were nationwide'and which helped likewise to reduce infant and child mortality, so that the proportion of 0-15 year olds, also rose from 35.7% to almost 40%. Table 251 The Age Structure of the Population of Bridge the number and % of the total population 1851 1861 1871 60 + 68 10.6% 88 12.5% 92 12.2% 16-59 330 52.8% 367 50.5% 382 48.5% O—15 223 35.7% 272 37.4% 316 39.9% 0- 5 95 15.2% 106 14.6% 112 14.2% 6-15 128 20.5% 126 22.8% 204 25.8% The reason for more children in the village resulted also from an increasing birth rate, yet there was a proportionate fall by 1% in the number of children five years or under set beside a 5% rise in the number of 6 to 15 year olds. While Bridge witnessed between 1851 and 1871 an increase in its youngest and oldest members there was a proportionate decline in its largely working population composed of those who were aged from 16 to 59, from 52.8% to 48.3%. It is possible that such a shift in the age structure of the community reduced the productive wealth of the village because of an increasing number of dependants set against a declining proportion of working people who were called upon to support them. On the other hand, there were more births and people were living longer, which could be indicative of greater prosperity. 59. CONCLUSION Such an apparent contradiction in the interpretation of census data provides but one illustration of the problems which face a local historian, who tries to draw any meaningful conclusions from series of statistics, as presented by the censuses of 1851, 1861 and 1871. The census material cannot be faulted for the abundance of accuracy of its statistics from which many general conclusions and trends can be determined. The major problem is that of interpreting the causes and effects of such trends which really cannot be done without recourse to other historical sources such as family papers, business records, newspapers or trade directories. This chapter has sought to highlight some of the uses and conclusions which can be drawn from census material but limitations have also come to light. Census data relating to the years 1851 to 1871 reveal information about the numbers, sizes and structure of families and households. Parents‘ and children were joined by domestic servants, lodgers and visitors, but the picture is not always complete and nor is it possible to state precisely how prosperous Bridge was as a village community during this period. The information to be obtained is basically statistical as shown in the tables and appendices to the chapter. Further information on family life which adds flesh to the statistical skeleton provided must be sought elsewhere. 40. APPENDICES 1. The Distribution of Children in Families number and % of the total population Number of Children 1851 1861 1871 0 37 28.7% 40 28.2% 46 29.1% 1 26 20.1% 23 16.2% 38 24.1% 2 20 15.5% 30 21.2% 16 '10.1% 3 16 12.4% 15 10.6% 10 6.3% 4 14 10.9% 12 8.5% 20 12.7% 5 10 7.8% 7 5% 13 8.2% 6 2 1.6% 1G 7% 9 5.7% 7 2 1.6% 4 2.9% 4 2.’% 8 1 0.8% 1 0.7% 1 0.6% 9 1 0.8% 0 O 10 0 O 1 0.6% 2. Occupations of fathers with 4 + children in 1861 Agricultural Labourer (17) Army Officer Baker Blacksmith Brewer's servant Bricklayer Butcher (2) Farmer Gardener (2) Labourer Landed Proprietor Laundress Miller's Journeyman Saddler Woodsman 3. Relatives Residing in Extended Families 1851 1861 1871 TOTAL Father 2 2 1 1 4 Mother 0 4 2 6 Brother 1 3 6 10 Sister 3 8 5 16 Aunt 0 1 1 2 Niece 5 3 4 12 Nephew O 4 5 9 Cousin 3 O 2 5 Grandchildren 7 11 20 38 Son—in—1aw 2 0 2 4 Daughter—in—1aw 1 4 2 7 Sister—in—1aw 1 3 2 6 Brother—in—1aw 3 1 1 5 Mother—in—1aw 2 4 4 10 Father—in—1aw 1 1 0 2 Aunt—in—law 2 O O 2 The Occupations of Heads of Extended Families, 1861 Agricultural Labourer Annuitant Builder Carpenter Carrier Collector of Parish Rates Fund Holder Grocer Licenced Victualler Major General (retired) Matcher Pauper Servant Watchmaker Widow Wheelwright Woodsman The Occupations of Heads of Households employing Servants Occupation Agricultural Labourer Army Captain Baker Brewer Butcher Carpenter Commander Curate Draper Farmer Fund holder & landed proprietor 1 Independant Licensed Victualler Major General Surgeon Trainer of Racehorses Number of Households P-*|'-‘l-‘J>i4CDU‘l|-‘f\3}~4!->5-*[\3l-‘.50! Occupations of Lodgers 1861 Agricultural Labourer (11) Dressmaker Annuitant Excavator (2) Blacksmith Farm Servant Brewer's servant Bricklayer (4) Bfidmmwr(M Butcher's Labourer Gardener (2) Harness Maker's Assistant Independant Labourer (4) Carpenter (9) Nurse Charwoman Police Constable Clerk to the Guardians Servant Curate Waggoner (3) Widow 42° Occupations of those taking in Lodgers Agricultural Labourers (10) Beer Retailer Brewer Brewer's Assistant Builder Butcher Butcher's Labourer Carpenter (2) Carrier Chemist Gardener (2) Groom Laundress Nurse School Mistress Servant Shepherd (2) Shoemaker Tailor Victualler (3) Waggoner Washerwoman Wheelwright Widow (7) FOOTNOTES All references relating to the census material on Bridge are to be noted as fo1lows:— (1) (2) (4) (5) for 1851 — P.R.O. 974/H.O.107/1623 for 1861 — P.R.0. R.G. 9/518 for 1871 — P.R.O. R.G. 10/965 Alan Armstrong, Stability and Change in an English County Town - A Social Study of York, 1801-51 (1974), 176. Ibid., 175. Ibid., 180. See the next chapter, pages 45-46. Armstrong, oE.cit., 180. 45- V: BRIDGE : AS PORTRAYED BY CENSUS MATERIAL 1851-1871: OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE Mrs. Zofia Wells t Any analysis of occupational structure from census data is restricted by the nature of the material which is available. Comparisons with other historical sources, such as trade directories or tithe Apporticnments, reveal inconsistencies and omissions. Certain limitations inherent in the way the information was obtained can affect the statistics and conclusions which are to be drawn from census material, and yet this observation applies equally to nineteenth century trade directories. (1) It was heads of house- holds who described occupations as stated in the census, even though one man for whom a specific calling was enumerated may have followed several occupations. The occupation given must be presumed to have been his main job, but also there is no means of knowing whether an individual was unemployed as opposed to being in full or part time employment at the time. It is perhaps best assumed that all those for whom occupations were given were also in employment on the night of the census. Hbwever, there were some adults and adolescents who, being listed without occupations, may have been permanently or temporarily unemployed. One man admitted to being "out of business” in 1851 and in 1871 there was an "unemployed clerk". One specific problem associated with the 1841 census where employers were not clearly distinguished from employees,also arose in.subsequent censuses, despite specific instructions being given to enuerators on how trades and crafts were to be described. While for 1851 there was a master blacksmith "employing one man" there were also three other blacksmiths in the village, including his son. Therefore did he employ his own son and possibly one of the other blacksmiths? Were the others self—employed, or could they have been working in another village? Sometimes these questions can be answered by referring to trade directories, but the latter were not always contemporary with the census. Despite these reservations, it is possible to trace some of the occupational changes which characterised Bridge over the twenty years falling between 1851 and 1871, but it must also be emphasised that a complete picture of the employment patterns and social structure of the village cannot be obtained from census data alone. Sometimes it is necessary to guess at the specific status of particular individuals. Classifying occupations can present great difficulties, particularly for rural communities where the standard socio—economic groupings applicable to urban societies are not necessarily relevant. Several researchers in this field have encountered this problem and each has attempted to solve it according to his own needs and the type of material used. (2) Apart from scholars, retired and 'unemployed‘ persons, occupations have been categorised into ten groups, plus a miscellaneous section for those who do not fit into these categories. The ten groups are: Agriculture Domestic servants Crafts and industries serving agriculture The constructional trades Food and Drink Clothing OWKTI-PKNIV)-‘ 0 A a 44. 7. Transport 8. Services, other than domestic 9. Professions and Administration 10. Dual occupations In some cases this classification is arbitrary and somewhat tentative, while it can be seen that some gardeners were employed by one family and were recorded as members of the employers’ household, this conclusion does not necessarily apply to all enumerated gardeners, some of whom could have been self employed jobbing gardeners. For simplicity, however, they are all classed as domestic servants. By classifying occupations in this way it is easier to detect changes which occurred within the village economy between 1851 and 1871, although not everyone necessarily worked in Bridge itself. Bridge farmers employed less than half the agricultural labourers who were enumerated. In 1851 there were four farmers, one of whom,having only six acres, employed no labour. Two employed eight men between them but for the fourth, who was probably the largest employer, there are no equivalent details. Apart from the farmers, two agricultural labourers also employed farm servants themselves; In 1861 twenty—six men and boys were employed in local agriculture as against thirty-six in 1871. The proportion of the total population who were working showed no significant change between 1851 and 1861 at 37.6% and 38.2% respectively. However, by 1871 the proportion had fallen sharply to 28.7%. This was a drop of almost 10% over 10 years. Looking at adult males alone, aged 16 and over, there was also remarkable consistency between 1851 when 88.65% of all men were employed as against 88.5% in 1861. Over the next decade there was an even greater decline to 63.34% in 1871. By contrast the proportion of women who were employed fluctuated between all three census years, from 11.45% in 1851 to 19.2% in 1861 and to 14.4.; in 1871. Throughout the period women accounted for approximately a quarter of all those employed, but then there are problems of under—representation in the case d?women and children which will be discussed later. The proportion and absolute numbers of children who were employed declined sharply from 8.9% in 1851 to 2.8% in 1871 or from 19 in 1851 and 18 in 1861 to only 8 in 1871. Bridge exhibited a fairly constant proportion of retired people and those who had private incomes such as annuitants or fundholders, the majority of whom were widows or spinsters. Retirement applied to retired tradeSmen and retired army and naval officers. The latter numbered two in 1851 and 1861 and three in 1871, but also in 1851 and 1871 Bridge was chosen as a place of residence for serving army officers, who were presumably stationed in nearby Canterbury. Retired labourers were often reduced to the status of paupers and were so entered in the 1851 census, where there were also three female paupers, one of whom was the widow of an agricultural labourer. All the paupers were over 60 years of age, the youngest being 61 and the eldest an 81 year old widow. Out door relief was not necessarily the sole source of income for paupers, as and where working wives and children were enumerated. Neither did old age necessarily inhibit continued employment. Nine agricultural labourers aged 60 and over were employed in 1851, the eldest being 73. There was also a butcher of 73. At the other end of the age range were young and working children, so that in 1851 three ten year old children were employed as farm servants. A nine year old boy was the youngest employee in 1861 while in 1871 that distinction LONDON I AIl RiEfib'3FEU§rI Sandwich“. Deal‘ Foikcstonc ROMNEV HYTHE I DYMCHURCH RLY. 1 F RAILWAYS - - ' 3 '9- STANDARD LlNE$=+'-+-+-#-+-*- g Q; LIGHT RAILWAYS OR NARROW E‘ E; — GAUGE LINE: -5 .,.,,,9,,..,, DATES OF OPENING SHOWN. 2 (Industrial Lines Without Passenger Service Omitted) o ;> 19 1_5Ms. Hastings ‘ 2‘ 53- belonged to a servant and to the son of a gardener, who was "employed in the garden”, both of whom were aged 13. The 1867 Royal Commission on the Employment of Children, Young Persons and Women in.Agriculture found that it was rare for children under 11 years of age to be permanently employed throughout the year in East Kent but some farmers made it a condition of hiring a man that his wife and children would also work as required. Thus boys of seven and eight were employed on bird—scaring in the spring. Hop fields were a notable source of employment for women who in turn were assisted by their children. (3) 1The effects of such an irregular work pattern on education were remarked upon in the report. Although there were few complaints of entire none attendance, "constant employment causes great irregularity”. In 1851 only 64 Bridge children who were under 15 years of age were scholars, of whom fifteen were under five. In some cases there were whole families of children aged from two to ten who were entered as scholars. Possibly their mothers had some kind of employment which was not revealed to the enumerator, which justified the expenses of schooling. Bridge had two schoolmistresses in 1851, one of whom may have been running a private school and “minding” the younger children, even though it was not uncommon for two and three year olds to be found on the registers of National Schools at this time. By 1861, when the number of scholars had risen to 99, fifteen were still below the" age of five. Nine years later the 1870 Education Act was passed to ensure sufficient school places for every child between the ages of five and fourteen, but there was no compulsion to attend. By 1871 the number of children at school in Bridge had fallen to 52 which in view of the above legislation seems surprising, and five of the 52 had yet to attain their fifth birthday. Of course not every child in the village would have received their education at a school, since four governesses were employed in 1861, falling to one in 1871. Some middle class children were sent away to boarding schools as they grew older and where this was so they were excluded from the census returns. The occupational changes which occurred over the twenty year period covered by the census material were complex, even though there were some fairly obvious changes, notably a decline in the proportion and absolute numbers engaged in agriculture and in those crafts serving agriculture, alongside a growth in what is known today as the tertiary sector of professions, administration and retailing. Persons employed in agriculture, as a percentage of total numbers employed, fell from 38% in 1851 to 52% in 1871, with the lowest point being reached in 1861 at 28.4%. Transport showed a rise from 0.8% in 1851 to 1.5% in 1871,but the highest point was in 1861 when 2.9% were employed in transport. The most spectacular irregular movement concerned the construc- tional industry which employed 18% of the workforce in 1861, as against only 5% in 1851 and 6.6% in 1871. It was this sector which distorted general trends for it was during 1861 that the London, Chatham and Dover Railway between Canterbury and Dover was completed, (4) the construction of which brought additional men to the area and created alternative work for labouring men who were already living in Bridge. It is very significant that the 1861 population of Bekesbourne was swollen by 125 additional railway labourers. (5) The effect on Bridge was less dramatic, there being only one railway labourer plus two navvies and two excavators. But in Bridge there was another buildi project in progress — namely the repair and rebuilding of the parish church. 6) 46. Railway construction and church restoration together had a marked effect on the numbers employed in.the construction industry: 1851 1861 1871 Brick manufacturer 2 4 — Bricklayer 2 11 1 Carpenter 5 14 5 Labourer 1 11 1 Builder — 1 — Plumber m 1 2 Plumber's assistant — 1 — Plumber's apprentice — ~ 2 Carpenter's apprentice — — 1 Painter 1 1 ~ Excavator — 2 ~ Railway labourer — 1 3 Navvy ~ 2 « TOTAL 9 49 15 Significantly, as noted in the previous chapter, there were seven families who were accommodating in 1861 three lodgers each. The arrival of these additional workers helped to sustain several villageservicaswhich were in competition with the proximity of Canterbury. One example can be found in the village laundry which employed nine women in 1851, thirteen in 1861 but only four in 1871. The brewing industry prospered to the extent that five brewers‘ servants were employed in 1861, whereas only two had been.employed ten years earlier. By 1871 the number had been_reduced to three. In the field of transport there were just two carriers in 1851, but ten years later this group consisted of three carriers, three waggoners, a waggoner‘s mare and an ostler. Enumerated in 1871 were a carrier, a carter and a turnpike gatekeeper. One change of a more permanent nature concerned the growth of the middle classes, who included professional men and people of independent means. Their increase and wealth meant employment for domestic servants and custom for shopkeepers. Between 1851 and 1861 the number of domestic servants increased from 54 to 67, and constituted nearly a quarter of the workforce. By 1871 their number had declined slightly to 62 but nevertheless this figure represented a higher proportion of those employed at 27.5%. Not only did the number of servants increase but their range widened, which suggests for some people, at least, a higher standard of living. The number of general servants was at its lowest in 1861, when more specialist and highly paid servants, particularly men, were most in evidence. Domestic servants: Male . 1851 1861 1871 House servant 1O 4 4 Gardener 5 7 9 Footman 1 — — Butler 1 1 1 Coachman 1 5 2 Groom/Gardener — 1 — Gromm — 5 4 Page — 1 — Stable boy - 1 — Garden labourer — 1 1 21 PO IV mom -_ 16 470 -3 O3 _.\ .4 C0 O‘\ _.x Domestic servants: Female 1871 I ‘ Housekeeper Governess Lady's Maid Nurse Cook Hbusemaid General servant Kitchen.maid Parlour maid Maid Nurse—maid Under—nurse Cook/Housekeeper f\3 ._s.._:...\||AU1f\)k>J\.)~3-3| ll——\——‘-‘O‘\—\'lU71\)--‘-¥>\'l I I-—*\J'lf\)U'\KN-‘--“-"1 TOTAL DJ CD 45 41 TOPAL ALL SERVANTS 54 67 62 The expansion of the professional and administrative sector was a well known characteristic of the second half of the nineteenth century, and resulted partly from a growth of local government. Bridge in addition was becoming an attractive area of residence for professional people within easy reach of Canterbury, and so, not surprisingly, a solicitor and a veterinary surgeon were enumerated in 1871. These considerations also attracted serving and retired army officers. Professions and Amministrative 1851 1861 1871 Post Mistress - Assn’t. Post Mistress — Doctor 1 Chemist 1 Rates Collector — Assn't. Rates Collector — Clerk to Guardians — Solicitor — Curate - Veterinary Surgeon/Coursing judge ~ I _.I I f\3|-‘I0-—‘lI\Jl—-‘ ...\._\ .44] Army captain Articled clerk Railway contractor Civil Engineer Clergyman Policeman Schoolmistress I 1 r\)——\I——\l ....:_.s..\|_.|_.s| —I>-r\)I\7ll TOTAL 7 14 14 7480 From the middle of the nineteenth century Bridge experienced a decline in traditional rural crafts, the number of which had halved by 1871. Between 1851 and 1861 the sawyer and the wattle weaver disappeared, followed by the wheelwright during the following decade although there remained a wheelwright cum carpenter, a fairly common combination, even though the specialised skills of a wheelwright were not possessed by every carpenter. Crafts and Industries serving Agriculture 1851 1861 1871 Miller 2 2 2 Miller's Labourer 1 — — Journeyman Miller 1 1 — Saddler 2 1 2 Blacksmith 4 2 4 Wheelwright 3 1 - _ Woodsawyer 1 — - Wattleweaver 1 — — Blacksmith's Apprentice 1 ~ - Blacksmith's Assistant — 1 - Harnessmaker's Assistant - 1 — Miller's Carter — 1 1 TOTAL 16 1O 9 Trends in village Shopping during this period are difficult to analyse and are probably more accurately traced through trade directories, particu- larly since some of those enuerated may have been employed in Canterbury or elswhere. Food and drink retailers, including brewers, who often combined manufacture with retailing and some other occupation, increased from 20 in 1851 to 21 in 1861 and 1871. Although numbers employed in victualling remained fairly stable there was only one brewer in 1861 as against two in 1851. One of the effects of improved railway communication was to allow larger breweries to extend their marketing area, so that Bridge by 1871 was included among the retailing outlets of Shepherd Neame of Faversham. Even in 1851 brewing and/or being a publican does not seem to have been viable as a single occupation with one brewer being also a coal—merchant as well as keeping the 1Plough and Harrow‘, while the proprietor of the ‘White Horse‘ was training racehorses, a business which expanded under his son's management up to 1871. One brewer employed up to five brewer's servants in 1861, whereas in 1871 there were only three to an equivalent number of brewers. 1851 1861 1871 Brewer 2 1 3 Brewer's Servant 2 5 5 memwaiwbumlmr 2 1 2 Publican — 1 — Innkeeper - — 1 Beer Retailer — — 1 Errand Boy 1 ~ — TOTAL 7 8 10 49m In 1851 Bridge had three butchers who between them employed two labourers and a journeyman butcher. Only two butchers remained in 1861, one of whom employed a labourer, while for 1871 there were just two butchers plus a combined butcher and grocer. The number of bakers fell sharply from four in 1851 to one in 1861 when also there was a combined grocer and baker, and a baker and carter who between them employed an assistant baker and a boy. Ten years later in 1871 these combined occupations had disappeared and instead there were three bakers. Grocers increased in nuber, quite apart from those who combined grocery with another trade. In 1851 there were two grocers plus a combined grocer and carpenter. By 1861 two more grocers had appeared, along with a grocer's assistant who was not listed ten years later. In 1851 Bridge had a fruiterer and a tea—dealer but they were not enumerated in 1861. The changing pattern of the clothing and footwear trades was equally complex. In 1851 Bridge had six boot and shoemakers, three of whom described themselves as cordwainers. By 1861 the cordwainers had vanished but there was now a girl ’shoebinder'. Ten years later, however, only two shoemakers served the needs of the comunity in 1871. While the Village tailor had retired by 1871 and had not been replaced, dressmaking proved to be a thriving female occupation, with three dressmakers in 1851, rising to four in 1861 and 1871. Two sempstresses and a shirtmaker appeared only in 1851. Canterbury was not far away for these services, but other needs of the fashion conscious ladies of the village were satisfied by two milliners, one of whom in 1861 was also a dressmaker but in 1871 they were no longer enumerated. Bridge sustained throughout this period a draper, but his two young assistants, who were brothers of 16 and 18, appeared only in 1851. Also enumerated were a watchmaker, and from 1861 a postmistress. Specifically for 1871 there were certain people whose occupations are difficult to classify and who may have been working outside the village. They included a ’matcher', a ‘fly bobsetter', a ‘case merchant’ and a V 'matmaker'. By now the horse training establishment founded by Richard Sherrard senior was in the sole occupation of his son and living in the village were a jockey, two stable lads and two apprentice lads. The village of Bridge possessed an economy which was neither static nor unchanging between 1851 and 1871. Census data over this period reveal considerable occupational changes. A decline of traditional rural work, both on the land and in crafts and industries, was countered by the demands of a growing middle class sector, who employed more domestic servants and were important consumers of goods and services which were produced and sold in the Village, but how many of Bridge's inhabitants worked in Canterbury or elsewhere is not known. II. III. 50. APPENDICES The Employed Population of Bridge. léél léél l§1l 237 278 227 Employed as a percentage of the total population léil léél léll 37.6% 58.2% 28.7% Independent or Retired l§2l léél léll 5.65% 3.16% 5.54% The Employment of Men a) Men employed as a percentage of the total population 1851 1861 1871 88.65% 88.5% 65.34% (164) (208) (140) Percentage of employed in eleven different categories 1851 1861 1871 Agriculture 38.3 28.4 32.4 Domestic Service 23.2 24.0 27.5 Crafts 6.75 3.5 3.25 Construction 5.0 18.0 6.6 Food and Drink 8.0 7.5 9.3 Clothing 6.75 4.3 3.0 Transport 0.8 2.9 1.3 Services 5.9 5.4 2.2 Professions and Administration 2.5 4.6 7.0 Dual Occupations 1.6 0.55 0.4 Miscellaneous 1.2 1.05 7.01 IV. 51. Employment of Women a) Women as a percentage of the workforce 1_8il E21. 1.8.71 25.8 25.0 25.5 b) Working Women as a percentage of all women 1_8_5_1 .1_§6_1 1.511 11.45% 19.2% 14.4% C) The Tercentage of Women employed in eleven different categories 1851 1861 1871 Agriculture 1.5 O 0 Crafts 0 O J Construction 0 O 0 Food and Drink 3.0 1.4 3.33 Clothing 9.2 9.7 _6.66 Transport 0 O 0 Services 100 100 80 Prof. and Admin. 28 30 42 Domestic Service 61.5 62.5 68.3 Dual Occupations O O 0 Miscellaneous 0 O O The Employment of Children a) The percentage of all children employed 1851 1861 1871 8.9% 6.25% 2.8% b) The Percentage of children employed in eleven different categories 1851 1861 1871 Agriculture 10.64 8.86 0 Domestic Service 9.25 7.46 11.29 Crafts 0 O 0 Construction 0 4.0 0 Food and Drink 10.0 9.5 0 Clothing 6.6 O 0 Transport 0 O 0 Services 7.14 6.66 0 Prof. and Admin. 0 O 0 Dual 0 O 0 Miscellaneous 0 O 8.33 518. o) The Ages of Children.Employed gge 1851 1861 1871 9 ~ 1 — 10 3 - — 11 - — — 12 3 1 - 13 5 4 3 14 5 4 2 15 5 8 3 TOEAL 19 18 8 d) The percentage of Children at School 1851 1861 1871 A 50 36 16.5 FOOTNOTES: All references relating to the census material on Bridge are to be noted as follows: (4) (5) (6) 1851 — P.R.O. 97 4/H0 107/1623 1861 — 2.3.0. R.G. 9/518 1871 — P.R.O. R.G. 10/965 Trade Directories and how they portrayed the history and life of Bridge are examined in Chapter VII. A. Rogers, Approaches to Local History (2nd edition, 1977), 99-102 Report of Mr. Geoffrey Stanhope to the Commissioners on the Employment ‘ of Children, Young Persons and Women in Agriculture, Volume XIII (1868—9),o—7. F.W. Jessup, Kent History Illustrated (2nd edition, Maidstone, 1973), 53. G»S. Minchin, "Table of Population 1801~1921" in Ed. W. Page, The Victorian History of the County of Kent Volume 11: (1932),321 Kelly's Commercial Directory of the County of Kent (1882), 68. i¢Qo,4-»:L_gr;_».~n ow-m 9? am Maoonmu ‘ GRAVESEND .0 Movthlieu '9“ -mansler 's"3”-'*¢°"‘b° 3¥>'.\:.‘))')l£¥fl’1 in I N n ' 5 C lc 'SoumlJael shot“. _ suntan Ravi: . we saw Bwh‘W§noumna '"a’“‘’ «screw “°""§“""°‘""° ‘ . . . ,~ “P " I Bulmg. -Swckbuv aagmsu 'Twr..~am :3-’AVEHSIM‘M '. oTmm5cIifle ‘WM " spnnge Boumtan mum Hum‘ . .Md'na!c!\ .Layboun-m V ».msocd- ' . o wRoTHAM' . Ouord o chflemng ' Kt unmham "Has! Mallmg Awesfad 'o°dd"‘9’°“ . , . . 4 "“‘"4 . m . "V11-‘wlofl .B°’,,“"’ ‘Thurman .55“, F.1stMaPmg -‘W I I Waxeringburyo I .""°‘”'¢Y ¢s:vE~oAxs . _ sang... , 'w5srEnHAM. ""-W9‘ cmmwonn {'°"°'d" | '°"'""," -5.;-.§,,5;,,.,,,,,, , 'ChiH_éW9fi‘ ‘._ .._.,, Hm Shibboumeo ‘Wes! Pecknam - N; ‘Um Nadia: _' Wwilm 3EN~ ‘. . -Ch.-mock 1 ‘°'°°Wm ** “- "Wm, gcmesmd _ .c,,a,m ’ ‘.8 n .cn-mi.‘ wppu mun-5 ‘ .' 09.1‘-z.-wm ‘vvaznxcv ‘ . . ' '3aIha . ‘._w ta 3 'F¢uI Esms Em P33-uh<:Ia!'r$ gwgmw Mmwéfl . M -zg rm - M; .. _ _ ' ‘S ’ . f‘ V a ershare Ksnasdowrr _ _ , . aw” ' "N" ' co. ._ °.C“‘BR'°°5 '!'°'°" ToMJR:oc.c "'5¢7Q:!ieId> am '°”‘°’“° . - n H , ‘Bf S1. raargarer 31 cme ': “mm! _ ~ *3“ ‘imam ’5W!9\QYxek1 . ‘I-hlvxhill '8rabouma . . ‘: °°‘'£°°!‘ _u_ . ‘Great chart’ ‘a. . , .- ' ‘.6 Oruuenzoca WELLS agcxmyaen - roombrldqo. ‘..:Quo¢ N...-co.-0-' --04,. I ". u .. Ulmberhuvst a spade,“ .0 . 0. ‘ . T‘: R V \ ‘ Vfies:e;nmnaer '3‘ _ _ ME D§\‘;»'oodcmm!I ‘ ‘ ’Benonden A ~ ' ' u Warehbme '- 'RoIvenden ‘Sm: “W” .1 'NIw!uurs1 - ‘Eh-.r.'1 "‘“"""°"° . '. , . . 'SandT':..w(s!- owmsnm lain olyyuugy, “mm ' ' o . . . Na-wander! 0 ' ' I . “°~nGw°v KEN? . . . ans...“-. '6rookland ,ml_,%_,m,W ‘Old Rummy ‘ 0 5 s'*u|...e. I1caQ*u.a-9 F’fi.¢c'~'~s -~ SCALEI9 MILES T01 INCH ‘ $9.3 :3 ¢-, g;_ “‘ "~‘€$'l‘6Ar-ur Eon:-I®l=aR-vr as?‘ Ed S-t~ \»¢~.er~\t-r: 52. VI:BRIDGE : AS PORTRAYED BY CENSUS MATERIAL 1851-1871: THE ORIGINS BY BIRTH OF ITS INHABITANTS Martin Morris INTRODUCTION Some valuable information can be obtained from Victorian census enumerators' books concerning the origins of Bridge's population, especially for the years 1851, 1861 and 1871, even though it was the 1841 Census which recorded for the first time the origins of individual villagers, as to whether each individual had been born in the same county as his place of residence, or whether in "Scotland, Ireland, or Foreign Parts". Commencing with the 1851 Census the information provided was more specifically actual places of birth, so as to present an almost complete record of origins by birth of the inhabitants of Bridge. This chapter is the last of three which from looking at the census returns of 1851, 1861 and 1871 illustrate family and household structure and means of living whether by profession trade employment or independent means, passing on now to the origins by birth of Bridge residents. The ‘where born‘ or birthplace columns of the census enumerators' books for Bridge for 1851, 1861 and 1871 (1) show to what extent its inhabitants had been born there as opposed to the surrounding area or places further afield. It might be argued from returns which show a high percentage of residents born in Bridge that the village was a self contained and perhaps inward looking community. other chapters indicate, however, that this Village, close to ‘Canterbury, was not wholly agricultural, such that all of its inhabitants would have been born at least in the surrounding area if not in the parish ‘ itself. Bridge had a fairly diversified economy and so could be expected to attract as inhabitants people who had been born elsewhere. In compiling this chapter several problems have arisen. How does the local historian devise a meaningful classification for the places of birth of the inhabitants of Bridge? One very clear distinction is between those born in Bridge itself as opposed to other areas such as "within five miles". Five miles was a comfortable distance to walk there and back in a day. Beyond five miles it is logical to think in terms of East Kent as an area east of a line starting from the Isle of Sheppey southwards through Faversham to Ashford and then south—east skirting Romney Marsh so as to meet Kent's southern coast of Hythe. Further afield lay the Weald and West Kent, the Home Counties, and elsewhere, which could extend to all parts of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland or Foreign countries. These distinctions so far as Kent is concerned are illustrated by a map. The more specific problems which arose during the research stage of this gro'ec .-r- .c_o I. -. 0. ' . .' a ' --'u ’ ' OVERALL TRENDS 55. Although pages of pure statistics can prove boring, it is necessary at least to state that in 1851 224 Bridge residents had been born in the parish which figure rose to 272 in 1861 and then rose again to 277 in 1871. Absolute figures however can be misleading, so that the percentage of the population born in Bridge actually fell between 1861 and 1871. These trends are shown in the following table which also indicates ever decreasing numbers and proportions born with ever increasing distances from the Village. TABLE I : NUMBERS BORN WITHIN EACH AREA IN THE CENSUSES OF 1851, 1861 and 1871 Bridge Within 5 miles East Kent West Kent and Home Counties Elsewhere TOTAL 1851 1861 1871 224 36.1% 272 37.4% 277 35% 191 30.8% 221 30.4% 212 26.8% 136 21.8% 122 16.8% 189 24% 37 6 % 67 9.2% 66 8.4% 32 5.2% 45 6.2% 46 5.8% 620 100% 727 100% 790 100% The information portrayed in this table is illustrated more graphically in the three circular diagrams on the following pages. Mobility of population must not be exaggerated in so far as a clear majority of Bridge residents had been born within the parish or within a five mile radius, amounting to well over 60% between 1851 and 1871. Distances travelled for purposes of residence or employment were more limited in the nineteenth century than they are today. Bridge had been born either in the village or within five miles of it. Kent as a whole was primarily agricultural. five mile radius. In 1861 67.8% of the inhabitants of East Most migrants into Bridge were attracted from this area and Table.II shows how over 85% of the inhabitants of the village had been born in East Kent, including Bridge and its immediate In none of the census years had more than sixteen per cent of the inhabitants of Bridge been born outside this immediate area. TABLE II : NUMBERS BORN WITHIN EAST KENT 1851 1861 1871 Absolute Numbers 551 615 678 Percentage of Total 88.8% 84.6% 85.8% 54. BRIDGE: 1851 CENSUS BIRTHPLACE OF INHABITANTS Bridge 36 . 1% within five miles 30.8% East Kent 21.9% BRIDGE: 1861 CENSUS BIRTHPLACE OF INHABITANTS _._..—-/Z’ within five miles 30.h% BRIDGE: 1871 CENSUS BIRTHPLACE OF INHABITANTS Bridge 35% within five miles 26.8% East Kent 21% 55. Females more than males were more likely to originate from far away places, which can be shown both in absolute and percentage terms, and yet higher proportions of females were born in Bridge in all age groups except those who were working between the ages of 15 and 59. Concerning working men there was a relative abundance of males of working age. Trends such as these suggest higher occupational mobility among females compared to males. Female employment in domestic service was one reason for this situation, which also meant that some aspiring husbands soughtspouses from well beyond the parochial limits of Victorian Bridge. The extent to which specific birthplaees can be identified within five miles of Bridge itself is shown in Table III and the two maps at the end of this chapter, which list many places which would feature in local conversations in Bridge today, such as Canterbury, Bekesbourne, Bishopgbourne, Barham, Patrixbourne, Lower and Upper Hardres' and Littlebourne. ‘PABLH III : LIST OF BIHTHPLACHS NOTED IN THE CMNSUSES WITHIN FIVE MILES OP BRIDGE 18§l 1861 18 1 Adisham 5 7 10 Barham 4 18 20 Bekesbourne 17 14 21 Bishopsbourne 36 34 22 Blean I 4 2 Canterbury 30 55 41 Chartham 6 2 3 Denton 1. l l Fordwich — — 1 Goodnestone 2 1 3 Harbledown 4 1 1 Ickham 4 3 A Littlebourne 11 ll 8 Lower Hardres 1O 12 7 Kingston 6 13 2 Nackington ~ — 7 Nonington 5 4 3 Patrixbourne l7 9 17 Petham 8 IO 18 Sturry 7 5 l Thanington — — 1 Upper Hardres 12 7 6 Waltham 2 4 — West Beer 1 - 1 West Well ~ — 2 Wingham 4 5 6 Wickhambreaux ~ — 1 Womenswold 2 3 5 TOTAL 191 221 212 Bekesbourne, Bishopsbourne, Canterbury and Patrirbourne feature prominently in the table, and the Canterbury figures are interesting for showing that not all Victorian migration by any means was from rural to urban areas, xsastfi .. .1 1 fie .3 K... , E 2... a ..L. 2%.». I x .M.W.u. e.§.«.§..§$ , 3. . aw‘ aw . .L.w»$.§.aéu. H. K? . a. w .... 32:51»: 5.8 xv ma .... .$.§&.=.e\ . a$.§§as$ >.2i.§.zv ssx.....: E9$fi.§w A § .$ 4/. . .§§§.§§v . ., Eu §%vk%k%.uR\ .m.v5 31 ‘sun .t§3§ u.$§€_§ its . .c.§..€ , V % . ...=.:..3£w it Q.U9\§a.~\ 3..§v%~(b A. .«.m $6 kg .2339 . ....3..<.u\ .3 ..:!\29... we at: ca . .a.%.»...».%.u§R.». ..E:o. a . VKKIU xv 4.-wxu §.¢\\\..s...\ an Qcwst . . . H.593; as. «:5»! with tuna: Quuhtfi A, ».<...<.u:«\ kwuaunwfihxx %~..§&§s . IE3 ,. . :25 sukkb ca :1. Qsxtiv tflkf. .9 Lab: 1.2. N 9 ma .w. 3:...‘ .¢_i3§ a. s.é...£ .3. §..n...§, §:...:, Efi 3u.stwm.... .._w.w. ma 923$ tbxuq » Q §..¢. ea, 9,‘ o .«.§.§>éx .. >x.<...E.. was .»s..§€¥QW +§§««..3. .$§§8 zcfiu Jo‘. + auefifi J « 35...... M» wekvfib. ESE 1.3. , 3933.0 .u....$$.§u ..EWw2 mmflw 236.2» .&......»..umK ~6a\.e% E3wos§o«i .. Eckwkwiqou hub: . 2§.<.a¥ EN umxkfi xso J 3$§\\ «aw». Ly? ..m.mw has. . nuwz Luk§3>\ w . ..ah§.§. . 6&5: »t.$a¥£.a.< .$<...3s . A wk. , :33! 3.6 2% on aw.“ 3.543. Ec....Ex, ttrxuua utxuouxi n..;3~Q» _ . ,. . awn » .52 A .€Ruu mafia ..a.§§su Siex. 3.85.. w 2§.ne:§. huuxu. 523 m m » u uh. urlususoo - . .~.S< W 4. »....._.E. W. um... kit ...»t_:.:.\ E... .:..:s. 5.E...§u 35 q .o w .eé3w..§._:3.. : z£.3<§... SEQ «wk.» §E.$u.a m ...$a.} .e. 5.» .5... :2.» ~ . o . . a ..\L- ~ rsttutal SN... :V)\\¢iNh 4.» ‘we on. 4 933% «M. .. Zktvmo kLQ«\ wit! PEEK 155‘! ~ .w% J. V w 5% at §.««§§s 32.23% «tuna. wvikmud .2. ~45» 5 §....a. 3: nu no u. . .o\ \.......p at... tfltuaaw aw 83:? .c 2: 9.» A €...<& 84 bzntuk uodof «u kubu .o.e~.:\ u<9$fio 0&3. .S.\ East .. . i 9 3:3 89.. E3 . 1.‘. $.12 flex 2333 .3... fik W anti» .._m...a. 1&9...» x Q . .95 mmmhwa « xkkikh 5.»! ..$....§..s«.¢hw 4 «NH :2 . zuqwow . ea 23% 3%.?! 52.3.5 tsfiqatb 4%. u -m {kg 3 K h k . . ) r2o$.v$\ E khfifltv c ..C§;c. . E E e .:$\38z 0., 4 .Vu.§\b%L..§$< ~.. w..4.o.W.:m, fifixac ESx.§tu «.333: we C1 9.25 human :0 «go £333»? 5.! :5. 31 LEV h§$V\\ 59% 9 .9 nwxara «Ga Lt u.S.o3.<..u. gt 1o..~3.$\ 1! .w.w.£...v 9% akoxuzrw 3.6» ..Vu!uN Estes +.xSSu.S 5 .3»L:.fi .C\$.§. §.ww4z.§ h?.Wo§h1 . 5:53 &$uM.$§\ oat n icita... ‘ . hm? . .t5su.$ 9<.V.9V\EW.V tskw . an . u. nwniwsw _, uzuwfi SM k»am..n..%.\.\€ 2.3» x . Manx nous Qv_§.\h>€.b hr-as». kmx ..Kk.Nu nkoflmqufix tavbw , F2. $:m2<._ oz._>>o:m. ._.zmv. mo >._.ZD.OU mI._.. Eu U160 41 . . /. 0 0. IV.I7) 7.... Wvgdm E0 .7~d.nVm _ . . mmwfim» fizm Tu .9 mo fl Gm. 5 ,1 . Wu; xummu ...u...ePn:.u......Vau~W.w:flu. . fl...u0.:¢.U wflJ...c... .?..J..............?) V vs: m.vIm.dfl.ul .¢.,....L.» .. an 1 569 but equally the close proximity of Bridge in Canterbury must not be overlooked. \s between 1851 and 1971 migrants rose significantly from Adisham, Barham, Bekesbourne, Canterbury, Nackington and Petham, but declined noticeably from Bishopsbourne, Chartham, Harbledown, Lower and Upner Hardres, Littlebourne, Kingston and Uturry. Migrationa] movements were two way as can be seen by comparing the 1861 and 1871 figures against those for 1851 in the specific instances of Bekesbourne, Goodnestone, Patrixbourne and Petham. A surprising increase in the numbers originating from the rest of East Kent is revealed in the 1871 census returns which perhaps is to be attributed to a greater mobility of workers within this agricultural region. Persons originating from West Kent or the Home Counties were very much in a minority, and yet places such as Croydon, London, Chelsea, Woolwich, Greenwich and Middlesex were well represented, although more so in the later than earlier census years. A few foreign birthplaces were also recorded for Bridge throughout the mid nineteenth century; for instance, the West Indies, in all three census years, suggesting previous military, naval or commercial connections with that part of the world. So far as the United Kingdom was concerned, Bridge residents had been born in several different counties, as well as in Scotland or Wales. Victorian Bridge had a population which was in no sense isolated from outside influences and inward migration. However, it was also the case that most of the people in the village between 1851 and 1871 had been born there or in some other part of East Kent. FOOTNOTES 1. All references throughout this text relating to census material on Bridge are to be noted as follows: For 1851 — P.R.O. 974/21.0. 107/1625 For 1861 — P.R,O, R.G. 9/518 For 1871 - P.R.O. R.G. 10/965 The census enumerators' books are on microfilm in the Beaney Institute in Canterbury. 57a VII:BRIDGE AS RECORDED IN TRADE DIRECTORIES, l8§9~l882. Brian Phillips TRADE DIRECTORIES: THEIR ORIGIN, NATURE AND HISTORICAL VALUE Directories are essentially lists of people and businesses, of which the most familiar variety encountered today is the telephone directory. Their purpose is to aid contacts. "Directories are, by nature and origin, instruments of commerce. Like roads, railways and the telegraph, they are a means of communication, essential to extensive trade relations and a wide market and they were compiled to meet the commercial needs of easy and rapid intercourse between buyer and seller". (1) Some publications catered for a special need, such as the police directories of Walsall in 1813 and Newcastlemunder—Lyme in 1856 (2). The first known directory was published in l677z A Collection of the Names of the Merchants Living In and About the City of London: Printed by Samuel Lee. It pre—dated the first European directory by fourteen years and was concerned solely with the wholesale trade (3). In the later eighteenth century directories began to appear outside the capital. Sadler's compilation covering Hampshire, of 1784, is the earliest known county directory. This outward spread reflects an enlargement of market areas, for which informal personal contacts are becoming inadequate. Their emphasis now turned towards a developing retail trade, providing greater information on shops and other local amenities for a more mobile population whose settlement patterns were changing. The spread of the holiday habit and the development of new resorts in particular created an urgent need for such information amongst resident visitors who were unfamiliar with the area in which they were staying (4). Purely court directories, listing residents of "quality" only, were rare outside London until the later nineteenth century. lncreased use of mail services was another stimulus to the production of directories, if only because the number of undelivered letters rose and their intended recipients had to be traced. Many directories were compiled by or with the help of postmen. In 1836, Frederic Kellyes famous link with the Post Office began, as shown by the title of his firm's directories(5). By 1814, when the first of Pigot's general directories came out, there existed already a class of professional directory publishers, employing skilled agents to collect information, As the century progressed, Kelly's successive publications eliminated rivals from the market. High standards of accuracy were aimed at in the business, though entertaining stories of rogue publishers abound. John Machoull of Worthing, who brought out a local directory in l81l and volumes of memoirs in 1809 and 1822, came from a family with an appalling criminal record. His mother, nicknamed W Gunpowder",was adept at stealing pewter pots from inns. His three sisters were thieves, while his brother Benjamin had been hanged for stealing a watch. Another brother, James,’ was also a petty thief and suspected of murder, He was tried for robbing the Paisley Bank at Glasgow of £20,000, condemned to death and reprieved 58c but died in jail soon afterwards, Machoull himself was a forger and kept a disreputable lodging—house in London, whence he retired to the Sussex coast c.l8lO, to keep up complaints that he was being persecutedl (6) In similar vein, the preface of another directory lamented the harmful effects of "...narrow—minded and unprincipled comment of certain individuals in the trade (making use of journals).,, to propagate the grossest misstatement and cowardly innuendoes..." (7 Illustrated at this stage is a complete mid~nineteenth—century entry for the village of Bridge. 7 —— -——----I----’'’‘''‘‘‘‘''''‘‘’'‘’‘’ ‘‘‘'"''''‘''''”''‘'"-'~''‘‘ 31121301‘: derives its name from its situation in 3! valley and 2; north tmnsept or ch.-mcel, in the centre of the north on the ‘Roman and modern mud to Dover, at a bridge of the aisle. The living is a perpetual curnc annexed over I feeder of the Scour. it is in the hundred of Bridge to Pntrixboxsrxie vicamge, joint annual value ,6‘ ’ , in the and Pethnm, and union 0! Bridge lathe of St. Augustine, panlwncge cfthe Dowager hiorcliionessof Conyn ham; the Canterhury county court district, diocese and archdeneoni-y, mi. John £.='ieu~nson, .\x.,\,, is the incumbent. ‘here is a Bridge deaneay, llmiles south of Canterbury, with a pa ula- National school, and u Lite:-My and Scientific institution for llon in l&':l,ol 804, and an area of l ,l(ll acres. The man Bridge and Pairixhourne. In the Il~2lgiilJ0lll‘i|0Od are several worlchouse cntnlnud 2%‘! lnumtcn out of tliianumber. The gentienaens seats. church of St. Peter consists of three males, 3 high chancel, Fenrzzorsn is helfa mile west; Renweil, E north-west. rzuvlum unsxnnxrs. COMM!-JECKAL. Jarvis Arm (Mu-s.), butcher Aldworih Rev. St. Ledggr, ILA Adams George, fan-iner liaise ' Geoige, lhrmer Bo ruck Mm Banks Robert Young, linexmirsper Kuig it George, shoemaker Ed in; lain Barter John, butcher Ltoss-hence Job, grocer Elgar Mrs Culegnte Richd. builder 5; xvixeeluright Marsh James, farmer -1-‘rm.-r Mr. Thomas Collgrd ’i‘homi\s, tailor Martin John, s. I filer (}x‘-rgor Mrs Collins John, farmer, Pectiiouse form. Moss .%.ifred, grocer 5: baker Jnrvin Jr. Henry Davis John, ocer Mutton Riclxard, ale 8: porter brewer, Jnrvin hire Dutnall wan am, in-iclamahcr wholesale 55 retail Johnson Mrs Eyers Joseph, Red Lean Sayer William, plumber Sc glazier Kin ord Elev. Brenciiley, ma. [curate Fag Thomas, blacksmith Size:-mrd Richard, postmaster 0 Blake . hourne] 1-‘inc William boot 6: shoe maker Sicard Aruelius, surgeon Lausbe rs ' Freer Funny (hiiss), seminary Steed. ioim, grzizier Martin To an Fryer George, miller 'i‘homas James, chemist Pittack Thomas, esq Ha:-déxnan William, watchmaker Sc Verriet William Curling, plumber 5:. . Pratt Lieut. David avreniz to the Kent fire 8: life ofiice hop hag mmiuiactmer Smith Rev. Isaac [curate Hodges Charles, butcher Wells Riahardi, master of National mm Stevenson Rev. J ohn,ax.A. incumbent], Homzms. Wiliiam,buiider ac registrar of Wlliite Thomas, boot 5: shoe maker Patrlxbourue births, deaths 3:. marriages White William, fnriner Winter Capt. Charles I-lornsbyClim-lesFortescue, Wlziteflorse Williams Daniel, eengrocer Huxstep Gilbert, farmer Wills Richard, bu er Poe“: On-xc_n.--Biclmrd Sher:-uni receiver. Letters from Regisirarfioffiirtizai, Deaths §-Mrzrr-Sages, ‘m. Humans. London cmve from Canterbury by mail cart at 7 3.11:. National eoimai, liicliurd Wells, master; Mrs. Sophia, as dis tched at B Pam: The nearest money order orifice Szoyerl mimosa is at Lagterbury 8 grlizig £W’49r3’:%4.§e, .l’:.xmesCBetts, master Puuuc rrzcnn :—- mni new arriers to o.oterim~ v ,3; D tn 1; cm» to em Ifnwn, ifvmiaxn rem; l daily ‘°‘’ °“’’ 9°“ “°“g Source: Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1859), 468, It has been selected from one of several trade directories which have been consulted for this chapter. It helps to set the scene for the later 1850's by offering a general description of Bridge as a parochial community. Considered in isolation it represents no more than a static picture for l859. Similar and sometimes fuller and more historical accounts can be gleaned from guidebooks, histories and almanacs. (8) Of equal or greater informative value are the lists of "private residents" and those in commerce and trades which follow the opening descriptive and topographical paragraphs, This format or arrangement of entry remained unchanged throughout the period covered by this chapter and was equally applicable to other towns and villages throughout the country. i The historial value of trade directories with particular reference to Sussex has recently been assessed as follows by John Farrant. "For the social historian they can indicate the internal structures of communities; for the economic historian the relative and changing importance of occupations and industriesl may be revealed....In few instances are directories undoubtedly better in quality of information than other sources: census enumerators' tallies are more comprehensive and probably more‘ 59- accurate in identifying ndividualsz r ‘be books can be much 60, embracing, directory entries for Bridge did not list even ten per cent of the population. Directories were chiefly consulted by the middle and trading classes, who sought the names and addresses of local gentlemen, spinsters or widows of independent means, such social equals as clergymen or officers in the services, as well as the heads of professional,trading or business firms. Domestic servants, employees, or labourers, who comprised a majority of the population, had no place in such works of reference, but conversely, the comprehensive census schedules did not always reveal the true status of a person within many an occupational category. : Altogether, approximately 250 differently named people, appeared in the directory lists between l8}? and l8B2¢ Much uncertainty arises however from listing people with similar but slightly different names, such as William Verrier, plumber, who appeared in l859 and 1847, and William Curling Verrier, plumber and hop bagging manufacturer, who was recorded from 1851 onwards. The latter was probably one and the same person or could be the son of the original William Verrier. The members of the Wye family in charge of the National School in 1874 ~ ”\ Robert Wye, Mrs. Mary Wye and Miss Ellen Wye m are separated by only a few years from Robert Wye, Mrs. Susan Emmeline Wye and Miss Fanny Wye, as listed in l878 and 1882. To some extent the historian is forced to make assumptions concerning family relationships, including whether people bearing the same surname are in fact, relatives. One possibility is that the Wyes appear as an extended family, Miss Wye being Robert's sister or Mrs. Wye being his mother, in the absence of other information. SOM GENERAL FEATURES OF BRIDGE Factual discrepancies between the directories are revealed for such seemingly indisputable matters as the population and acreage of Bridge. The population in 1841 was given as 8l7 by Bagshaw (1847) as against 632 by Kelly (1851); for 1851, Melville (1858) recorded 804, which surely must be a clerical error since Kelly (1855) had recorded it as being 864; for 1861 the population was variously /“~ 800 or 893. (24) There is general agreement that Bridge parish covered 1161 acres, though acreages of 1169 and 1280 were recorded also. (25) Other basic facts which were diligently reported in virtually every directory included the numerous ecclesiastical and civil administrative districts in which Bridge was located, however archaic they had become. Only Melville's five economical sentences in l858 omitted these particulars, though two of them informed the reader that the spiritual living was a perpetual curacy and that the Wesleyans possessed a place of worship. One year later, in l859, this latter fact received no mention, possibly because editorial space was required for other pieces of information, notably the first mention in that same year of a local Literary and Scientific Institution for Bridge and Patrixbourne, together with the Canterbury County Court district. In 1862 the existence of the Canterbury police district was first noted. The development and increasing complexity of local government is a strong theme in these directory entries, commencing with the Poor 4 Law Union which took its name from Bridge. Over the years more and more 61. of its officials were listed, along with the parishes contained within the Union from 1862. From 1870 appeared statements of its rateable value and gross estimated rental. All these particulars were given in voluminous detail for 1882. The creation and operation of the Union and its workhouse are examined in a subsequent chapter. (26) The allocation of space to describing the parish church, which would have interested those readers for whom directories were designed, did not diminish through time, as can be seen from the 1867 and 1882 entries. Despite such preoccupations other economic and social features or develop- ments did not pass unnoticed. Gas lightingin Bridge was first mentioned in 1862, while from 1874 the Bridge Gas, Coke and Coal Cb., Ltd., was included in the commercial section. Mindful perhaps of the agricultural interest, the 1870 directory was the first to state that the local soil was chalky and that the chief crops were wheat, barley and cats, with hops being added to these details in 1882. Improvements in postal services were effected to the extent of two daily collections by 1878 and two deliveries by 1882, while money order, telegraph and savings bank facilities at Bridge Post Office had appeared as early as 1874. I Some indication perhaps of the prosperity of the village, patchy in coverage over time is revealed by fiscal valuations. The Property Tax assessment in 1842 was £5,655, while subsequent rateable values rose from £2,957 in 1847 to £5,067 in 1870 and 1878 and to £5,5l7.in 1882. THE PRIVATE RESIDENTS OF BRIDGE The people listed under this heading were described as "Gentry" before 1859, such as Mrs. Beasley and T. Pittock, esq., in 1851. The size of this more exclusive social category increased during the period, from at least half—a—dozen in 1859 (27) to 11 during the 1840's and 1850‘s, to between 15 and 17 during the 1860's, to 21 in 1870, to 25 in 1878, accelerating thereafter to reach 54 by 1882. What appears to be a sustained rise concealed, however, some fluctuations among specific groups within the Elite of Victorian Bridge. From 1845 there were normally two or three officers, falling to one only in 1866 and 1867. Their numerical strength having recovered to five in 1870, then declined before reaching six in 1882. Clergymen were most numerous in 1859 when four were listed including the incumbent, the Rev. John Stevenson, who lived at Patrixbourne. Earlier in that decade none had been recorded. There were also seven widows in 1859. A subsequent reduction in their number was reversed so that there were again seven in 1878, and eight in 1882. Spinsters were not recorded before 1866 and thereafter were never more than three in 1878. Males other than officers and clergymen rarely constituted more than half of the private residents, and in 1855, 1858, and most of all 1859 were surprisingly few in number, yet there were many in 1878 and 1882 Q2 and 17), even though their relative importance had not increased. This development and increase in the number of resident widows were chiefly responsible for the higher numbers of private residents towards the end of the period under review. 5 The directories suggest that social upward mobility within the village was restricted. Few people managed to get transferred from the commercial to the private entries and when this did occur it is possible that a namesake may have irrupted on to the scene. Mrs. Boyack, who ran a private ladies‘ school, "crossed" between 1858 and 1859, (28) but then conducting a private school was a perfectly respectable 62. occupation. Other instances included George Kelsey, a farmer, between 1867 and 1878; Joseph Eyers, who managed the Red Lion, livery stables and a carriage business between 1870 and 1874; and Edward Gibbs, the brewer, during the same period. The only villager to be listed in 1839 and 1882, William Sayer, a plumber, also achieved private resident status. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN BRIDGE Some idea of the commercial life of Bridge is obtained from the commercial lists., An alphabetical list of trades and the numbers engaged in each constitute Appendix II to this chapter. Such data fail, however, to portray a full picture of the village‘s economic activity. A mere counting of trades reveals absolutely nothing about the relative sizes of such business enterprises, in terms of capital or numbers of staff employed. There is also no hint as to their turnover or profitability, all of which are essential prerequisites for serious business history. Though certain calculations are set out below, they are not to be regarded as authoritative in any respect. They are merely suggested trends. Assuming that yentered trades are comparable then increasing numbers suggest an expanding village economy. The basic information that can be extracted with a minimum of controversy concerns the range of occupations, showing which ones endured, which vanished and which emerged. It can be seen that bakers, a blacksmith, boot and shoemakers, a brickmaker, one or two builders, butchers, farmers, grocers, inns, a linen draper, a miller, plumbers, a saddler, a surgeon, a tailor and a watchmaker were permanently repres- ented. Only some of these trades were represented by more than one enterprise for serving the daily needs of the village. Other fairly persistent trades included a brewer (up to 1874), a chemist, one or two glaziers during the 1850's and 1860's, one or two private schools, and one or two wheelwrights. At least one general shopkeeper was listed regularly from 1866 onwards, there having been three in l845 and one in 1847. Regularly listed towards the end of the period were one or two beer retailers, one or two carriage proprietors, one or two carriers, a coal merchant, one or two insurance agents and one or two livery stables. ' Trades which died out tended to be crafts, notably a basket and sieve maker, a farrier, a harness maker, a linen manufacturer (displaced by the linen draper), a straw hat maker and a hop bag manufacturer. Rather isolated and short-lived were a broker, a commercial traveller, a jeweller, a manure agent, a marine-stores dealer, a rent collector, a tin—plate worker and a toy dealer, whose presence was not vital to the local economy. Intermittent entries included a bricklayer, a carpenter, a grazier, one or two greengrocers, one or two painters and an undertaker, while from 1878 the village possessed a veterinary surgeon. The function of "dealer" was performed under three different labels at three different times by three different people, viz.: "dealer in sundries" (1839), "general dealer" (1870) and "provision dealer" (1882) The first two were possibly close to being unspecified "shopkeepers". Trades appearing relatively late often performed specialist services, such as a contractor, a decorator, a plasterer, and the veterinary surgeon. The agricultural interest between 1878 and l882 was represented by a resident landowner and one or two hop growers. Farmers were included 63. throughout, with the single exception of 1839 (Pigot), this particular omission having been noted already. Between three and five farmers were listed from 1845 to 1858 rising to a steady six between 1859 and 1867, falling to five between 1870 and 1878 and dropping back to four in 1882 as in 1845. , Fluctuations in the number of farmers did not necessarily indicate changes in agriculture, or farm size, particularly since farm acreages varied and extended across parish boundaries. Some trades and occupations were noted intermittently, almost it seems at the whim of directory compilers. Carpentry, bricklaying, hop-bag making and painting, when mentioned, were carried on by people who had other, more enduring occupations, while being a wheelwright or undertaker in a village the size of Bridge was clearly not a full—time hurgnit_ iggfl _YE;A§_: 1859 1845 1847 1851 1855 1858 1859 1862 1866 1867 1870 1874 1878 1882 I A: No.of trades X Nos. 110 each 36 48 34 56 38 41 40 37 40 40 43 42 46 54. Period 59-45 45-7 47-51 51-5 55-8 58-9 59-62 62-6 66-7 67-70 70-4 74-8 78-82 B: No. of increases in (A) .25 4 9 5 9 9 5 4 2 5 4 6 16 C: No. of decreases in (A) 11 18 7 1 6 10 6 1 2 2 5 2 8 1): Management changes in ggxailx 4 1 1 2 5 5 2 2 0 9 2 1 1 E: Other management changes 6 4 2 2 3 6 O 1 O 5 3 5 9 F: Nos. 5:‘ (A) unchanged 15 25 24 51 24 22 51 55 58 25 52 56' 28 0: Average p.a. or (13) 5 2 )2 0.75 5 9 1 1 2 1.67 1 1.5 4 H: " (C) 2 9 (2 0.25 2 10 2 0.25 2 0.67 1.25 0.5 2 I: " (D) 0.67 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.67 5 0.67 0.50 0 5 0.5 0.25 0.25 J: " (E) 1 2 0.50 0.50 1 6 0 0.25 0 1.67 0.75 1.25 2.25 K: % of (A) at end of each period unchanged 55 70 67 75 62.5 50 75 75 95 50 80 72 50 ‘B887: 01}, p0T_§.'I8d 9I.{Q. 19110. 93'p‘_EJ.'.g JO 9.I'E1C;.On.IC].S [‘B(1OT_.'C}'€dnOOO sq; UT 0179 65. The numbensin row A relate to "occupational units", which are defined as the number of trades inflated by the numbers engaged in each one. Notable increases occurred between 1839 and 1845 and between 1878 and 1882. It is from information contained in the next five rows, B—F, that the annual averages shown in rows G—J are calculated, as one way of compensating for the irregular intervals at which the directories were published. Comparing rows G and H, it can be seen that new and disappearing "occupational units" more or less balanced each other at most times, with a slight bias in favour of growth. Row I reveals that the handing- ovcr of a business to another member of the familv was most evident in 66. Length of 7 recorded stay: 1 entry 1-5 yrs. 6-10 11-5 16-20 21-5 26-30 31-5 35-40 40+ MALE TRADERS 49 l8 »l2 ll 5 21 5 4 2 1 FEMALE TRADERS 8 4 3 1 1 ALL TRADERS 57, 22 15 12 6 21 5 4 2 l OFFICIALS 12 1 7 __ 2 __1 1 _f ‘_ J___} winows 10 6 4 1 -2 — _ _— SPINSTERS 1 2 1 CLERGY 7 2 OFFICERS 5 3 1 1 -_ CONYNGHAM FAMILY 2 1 OTHER MALE RESIDENTS ll 7 8 2 2 TOTAL PRlVATE RESIDENTS 37 18 12 7 5 1 . GRAND TOTAL 106 41 34 21 12 22 5 5 3 1 CONCLUSION The seventeen trade directories which have been examined for this chapter help to reconstruct the economic life and social structure of Bridge so as a Victorian village community between 1859 and 1882. They suggest that gentry and professional and trading families managed to thrive over this forty-year period. This conclusion seems justified despite the variety of publishers and the different standards which they adopted. Much added detail is provided for the four years separating 1878 and 1882. These were years of change. With respect to agriculture, hops appeared along- side cereals as a major cash crop. There were two hop growers in 1882 instead of one in 1878. The number of farmers dropped from five to four, while no grazier had been listed since 1859. The number of listed private residents rose sharply from 25 in 1878 to 54 in 1882, attaining thereby parity with the number of commercial names. Businessmen who were involved in more than one trade and the number of "occupational units" also rose significantly. Finally, there was a rise of almost 10% in rateable value from £3,067 in 1878, to £5,317 in l882. Although trade directories contain much economic and social detail for the Victorian period, their different approaches, omissions, faults and whims also reveal as much about the compilation of such works as about local history. 67. APPENDIX I Primary Sources Piflot and Co's Roval National and Commercial Director and To o a h (1839). 235. Piyot qpd Co's Roval National and Commercial Directo and To 0 a h 1 (18405: 235. Post Office Directorv for the Six Home Counties (1845), 220. S. Bagshaw, History, Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Kent . (Sheffield, l847),vo1ume 11, 254-5. Post Office Directorv of the Si;_Eome Counties (1851), 260. Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1852), 260. Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1855), 280-1. Melville and Co's Directory and Gazetegg of Kent (1858), 55. E2ei_Qi£i2e_DiIe2i2Ii;ri;ih2_§iz_§2me.Q22£i;2e.(1859). 468 Post Office Directorv of the Six Home Counties (1862), volume II, 752. Post Office Directorv of the Six Home Counties (1866), volume 11, 849-50, G H and c ' Po al and Co rcial Director of Kent (1867), 112-3. Eost Office Directorv of the Six Home Counties (1870), volume II, 1041. Post Office Directory of the Six Hgme Counties (1874), volume II, 1159-60. Pgst Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1875), volume II, 1159-60. Post Office Directorv of the Six Home Counties (1878), volume II, 1292-3. Kelly's Directory of Kent (1882), 67-8. A useful finding listof Kentish directories exists in W. F. Bergess and B. R. M, Riddell, Kent Directories Located (Maidstone, 1973). 59. L{\ 1-1r-4:-iN'\ C\ln—i(\lN\ I-Ir-4r-4N\ I-in-lr-4N\ 833m 39,3 a .M\wsqmS Qmflfld Hmmmmm Cmfiflfl HmQ3OUQdA w m::H mmaHm3mm mu:mm< oocwudmca H03OHU mom nwnsvodmdnmz wmmlmom Hoxwz wmmcnmm v Hmoonw Hooonmcmmuw Hwwumuo w amflumfiu Hwammn Hwnosmo Howflhdh umemwm novanoomn mmma mmma wpma opma wmmfi wmmfl mmma mmmfi mmmfi mmma Hmma wvma mvma mmmfi A.u»:oo MM xHazmmm« APPENDIX 11 gcontd.) 1839 1845 1847 1851 1855 1858 1859 1862 1866 1867 1870 1874 1878 1882 Manure Agent Marine Store Dealer 1 1 Miller 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Painter 1 2 2 1 Plasterer 1 Plumber 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Rent Collector 1 1 Saddler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Shopkeeper 1 1 Straw Hat Maker 1‘ Schools (2) 2 1 . 1 1 1 Surgeon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tailor/ess 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 Tinplate Worker 1 Toy Dealer 1 Undertaker 1 1 1 Veterinary Surgeon 1 1 watchmaker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wheelwright 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 Notes (1) "Dealer in r ‘(I sundries" (1859); "genera; dealer" (1870) and”provision dealer" (1882). (2) See footnote (29) 'OL 71-C FOOTNOTES (1) (2) (5; (4 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 20 21% 22) 23) (24 (25) J. E. Norton, Guide to the National and Provincial Directories of England and Wales, excluding London, published before 1856. (1990), 1. Ibid., 2, 14. Ibid., 1. Ibid., 10. 1bid., 11-2. . 1bid., 20, 180-1. Quoted in ibid., 22. As presented for instance in Chapter 1. J. H. Farrant, Sussex Directories 1784-1940 (2nd Ed., Brighton, 1975) 1. w. G. Hoskins, Local History in England (2nd Ed., 1972), 30. A. M. Everitt, "Town and County in Victorian Leicestershire: The Role of Village Carrier", in (ed.) A. M. Everitt, Perspectives in English Urban History (1975), 213-40. P. Wilde, "The Use of Business Directories in Comparing the Industrial Structure of Towns" The Local Historian, XII, Nos. 3 and 4 (1976), 152-8; D. Alexander, Retailing in England during the Industrial Revolution (1969) J. Whyman, "Eynsford and Lullingstone a Century Ago,” Cantium: A Magazine of Kent Local History, V, No. 2 (Summer 1973), 58-44. The bigliography in Farrant, op.cit., 4, lists five other studies. Hoskins, op.cit., 181. W. B. Stephens, Sources for English Local History (Manchester, 1975), 50. Ibid., 104. 1bid., 156,159. Ibid., 180,192. Norton, op.cit.16—8. The entry in Pigot and Co's Royal. National and Commercial Directory and Topography (1859) covers Littlebourne, Bekesbourne and Patrixbourne as well as Bridge so it is difficult to distinguish where some of the private gentry actually lived. Except in 1858, 1859 and 1867. Pigot and Co's Directory, 525. Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1874), volume 11, 1160. See chapters 3, 4 and 5. Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties (1866), volume II, 849; J. G. Harrod and Co's Postal and Commercial Directory of Kent (1867), 112. ‘ S. Bagshaw, History, Gazeteer and Directory of the County of Kent (Sheffield, 1847), volume II, 234; Post Office Directory of the Six Home Counties: (1845), 220; (1851), 260. See chapter IX. See footnote (20) above. She is recorded as Mrs. "Bryack" in 1858. "Boarding academies" in 1839; "seminary" in 1845 and 1859; "ladies' boarding school" in 1847; "boarding schools" in 1851, 1855, 1858, and "ladies' school" from 1874. 72. VIII: BRIDGE AS PRESENTED IN LOCAL NEWSPAPERS BETWEEN 1840 AND 1878 Robert A. Scott INTRODUCTION: THE KMNTISH GAZETTE AND OTHER CANTERBURY NEWSPAPERS, 1268-l8§§ Charles Lamb once observed that "Newspapers always excite curiosity. No—one ever lays one down without a feeling of disappointment."(l) In many ways this comment is relevant to the use of old newspapers as a source for studying the history of mid—Victorian Bridge. Dr. Alan Rogers, however, notes that "a lengthy run through even a weekly is a laborious task" (2) especially since the contents of local newspapers have never been indexed. Following on a Bill for abolishing the compulsory Newspaper Stamp, which took effect on 29 June 1855 there dawned an era of cheaper and more comprehensive newspapers with greatly extended local coverage. The Kentish Gazette, as the principal source of reference for this chapter, has enjoyed a continuous publication since 1768 and can be consulted in the Beaney Institute in Canterbury. Bridge was merely one small community within the circulation area of the paper which in its local news coverage took in regular reports from such towns as Tonbridge, Rochester, Margate, Deal,Dover or Hythe. Thus information on a village as small as Bridge is often sparse or superficial leaving many of the local historian's questions unanswered. The Kentish Gazette first appeared towards the end of May 1768. It cost twopence and repland The Kentish Post as one of England's earliest provincial newspapers, having first appeared in 1717. The present day Gazette claims dubiously to have existed from that earlier date. Its Canterbury printer, James Simmons, used the first issue to announce the following objectives "To the Inhabitants of the County of Kent and the City of Canterbury": "1 hope to render it not only valuable but entertaining; that, biased by no Party, and under no influence whatever, it shall be open to the favors of every corresponding Friend, and all possible Care shall be taken for the due management and Circulation thereof." (3) Such good intentions did not persist so that by 1840 The Kentish Gazette had become associated with the Conservative interest whilst its great rival The Kent Herald supported Liberal views. Selected years have been examined for the purpose of this chapter, namely 1840, the odd years of the 1840's, followed by the even years from 1850 onwards. Originally it was intended to look at only one week in each month, but it soon became clear that since information on Bridge 73. was intermittent, a more detailed study was required. It is easy to miss events. perhaps of some importance, using such an approach, but it is not the aim of this chapter to record all the events which occurred in Bridge, rather to portray aspects of the village's everday life as reported by a local newspaper. Hopefully a fair coverage has been achieved. On Tuesday, 7 January 1840, The Kentish Gazette and Weekly Journal for East and West Kent was published, price fourpence, copy number 7122, with a circulation "every Tuesday through the principal towns and villages of Kent and part of Sussex, Surrey, Essex and Middlesex", being widely read amongst "the nobility, gentry, clergy, agriculturalists and mercantile classes". (4) It contained only four pages each of which had six columns; it was printed in Canterbury by Robert Smithson. Local news formed only part of the content of Victorian local newspapers. As well as national and foreign news they contained selected items from both London newspapers and from other newspapers under the all~embracing heading<fi‘Provincial Intelligence. The local news of The Kentish Gazette was largely limited to Canterbury itself and to other major towns of East and West Kent. News from Canterbury covered its various clubs, the City Magistrates‘ Court, the East Kent Quarter Sessions. the Canterbury Hospital and Dispensary, market prices, and births, deaths and marriages.‘ This was the pattern of local reporting until 1855. The Kentish Gazette had to compete against rival newspapers. The Kent Herald, at the end of 1854 was "printed and distributed every Thursday morning by George Burch, 9 High Street, Canterbury". Having seven columns to each of its four pages, it cost the same as the Gazette, enjoyed the same wide circulation and claimed similar sales figures. The Kentish Observer was more expensive at fivepence but it did incorporate "the Ramsgate and Margate, Deal and Sandwich, Dover, Hythe and Eolkestone, Ashford and Romney, Faversham and Sittingbourne, Herne Bay and Whitstable Journals". Published on Thursdays it contained eight pages of six columns each. Every Saturday was published the youngest of Canterbury's newspapers, The Canterbury Journal and Farmer's Gazette (5), but its circulation at mid-century was only one quarter that of the Gazette. The repeal of the Stamp Duty half way through 1855 had a sudden and dramatic effect on the newspapers of East Kent. The reaction of the Gazette was typical of the contemporary press as a whole. "On TUESDAY NEXT, JULY 3, The First Tuesday in the Ensuing Quarter That Old—Established County Newspaper, the KENTISH GAZETTE will be ENLARGED to the size of the London Daily Papers; with Eight Folio Pages, containing Forty—Eight columns of reading... Improvements are also now in contemplation which 74- Cheaper local newspapers appeared on the scene and their prices were "within the means of a large class of the community to whom the purchase of a newspaper has hitherto been a prohibited luxury". (7) 1855 was also memorable for the first appearance of The Canterbury News and General Advertiser on 14 July, which was introduced as a "Penny, first-class Newspaper" (8). This paper must have been one of the original "popular tabloids" intended for "the working man", which sought to influence "the cause of Reform". (9) Certainly it met with immediate success and was claiming after only twenty-three weeks that "We expected to circulate five hundred copies per week, whereas our circulation has averaged during the last few weeks upward of FIFTEEN HUNDRED and on one occasion reached Eighteen Hundred.” (10) Following on its initial success it was extended and enlargedas The East Kent Times and Canterbury News. From the mid 1850's onwards there emerged a wide and popular demand for newspapers, which involved an extended coverage of local, agricultural, scientific, and ecclesiastical news, as well as such items as literary reviews, a ladies’ corner, family column and 'Gleanings from Punch‘. ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING MAINLY TO PROPERTIES AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS Then, as now, advertisements occupied a good deal of space in the local press, and they provide useful information for the local historian. Most of the advertisements were purely local. Residents of Bridge and elsewhere learned of innumerable patent medicines, of schools, insurance companies, amusements, or of impending sales and auctions, or of recently published books and magazines. The Kentish Gazette of 7 January 1840 for instance included advertisements for the following: The Agricultural and General Life Assurance Co. Hudson's Botanic Tooth Powder and Tincture. The Annual General Meeting of the Association for the Prosecution of Felons and Thieves. Dane Court Academy, Albion House School, Littlebourne. r Among the advertisers of 51 December l878 were: W. E. and J. Rigden, Pale Ale Brewers, Canterbury and Faversham, Celebrated Family Pale, Stock and Mild Ales, Stout and Porter. A Fortune for a Trifle. £20,000 for £1. Elliman's Universal Embrocation. Hay Fever and Colds cured by Dr. Dunbar's Alkaram Smelling Bottle. J. W. Benson, Watch and Clock Maker. R. Bette and Sons, Coal Merchants. Pianofortes for Hire from 10s. per Month ZErom7 H. J. Goulden. Henry Lawrence's Improved Spectacles. There were relatively few advertisements originating from Bridge, but since the village was no more than three miles from Canterbury, as the principal shopping and social centre of East Kent, its residents were 75¢ naturally interested in those advertisements concerning Canterbury. Purely Bridge advertisements concerned the Poor Law Union and the Canterbury Races, which find mention elsewhere in this chapter. Properties and household possessions which were advertised for sale reflect, however, both styles of living and movements of people to and from the village. Advertised for sale during March 1840 were "two well-built and commodious Messuages" which it was suggested would suit "persons retiring from business, or builders wishing to engage in speculation". (11) Bridge was portrayed as an attractive and quiet village, which was suited to retirement and yet was close to Canterbury. The household possessions of a sugeon are clearly indicated in the following advertisement which appeared in October 1841: "BRIDGE TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION By H. S. westfield. On Friday October 15th, 1841, all the HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, and EFFECTS, on the Premises of William Nix, Esq., Surgeon (leaving that place). Comprising carved mahogany four—post and French bedsteads with chintz furnitures, bordered goose-feather beds, bolsters and pillows; mattresses, palliasses, blankets, sheets and counterpanes, mahogany chests of drawers, dressingand washing tables, dressing glasses, basins and ewers, painted bedroom chairs, covered with satin hair and brass bound, plate and plated goods, china, glass and earthenware, fenders and fire—irons, the usual kitchen requisites and culinary articles, and a variety of miscellaneous and useful property. The whole to be particularised in catalogues, to be had on Thursday previous to the sale, of the AUCTIONEER, 16 St. George's Terrace, Canterbury, and at the place of sale. Sale to commence at 11 o'clock." (12) Subsequent auctions included during 1845 the "Household Furniture, Patent Mangle, Double and Single Barrelled Guns and Effects... of the late Mr. H. PYM at BRIDGE", (15) and nine years later the "Household Furniture, Plate, Linen, excellent Race Horse, Corn, Fodder, Stable Implements and Effects... of Mr. Richard Marsh (under a Bill of Sale)". (14) On 2 April 1878 it was announced that the contents of Bridge Place were to be auctioned within days as follows: "BRIDGE PLACE, BRIDGE, NEAR CANTERBURY on Thursday April 4th 1878 The Property of Walter Gipps, Esq., who is leaving the neighbourhood comprising iron bedsteads, mattresses, palliasses, dressing tables, looking glasses, chests of drawers, chamber ware, Turkey and other carpets, rosewood sofa in green damask, walnut davenport, inlaid occasional table, mahogany sideboard with celleret drawer, rosewood pianoforte by Anderson, fine toned cottage pianoforte by Nutting and Addison, mahogany chairs in American cloth, dinner and dessert services, silver handle dessert knives and forks in mahogany case, quantity of plated articles, handsome clock under glass shade, walnut inlaid cabinet with glass back, fenders and fire—irons, sundry chairs, earthenware, kitchen utensils, quantity of garden 76. tools, wringing and mangling machine, chaff cutting machine, oil cake crusher, lawn mowing machine by Green, large iron garden roller, cucumber frames, waggonette in good repair, sociable light dung cart, nearly new, five couples of fowls, &c., &c. The lots may be viewed the day previous and on the morning of the Sale which will commence at Twelve o'clock precisely. Catalogues may be obtained of Mr. EYERS, the [Eed7 Lion Inn, Bridge; and of the AUCTIONEERS (Messrs. Sladden), Adisham and Bekesbourne. (15) Here was a substantial household which could afford the domestic luxuries of two pianos, while an extensive kitchen garden is indicated hy the inclusion of garden tools and cucumber frames. Eleven separate Bridge properties were included in a single auction in six lots which Messrs. Cooper handled on Saturday, 24 March 1866: (16) l. "A respectable DWELLING HOUSE and BUTCHER'S SHO“,,,, now in the occupation of Mr. Stephen Bartter." 2. "A genteel and substantial brick—built RESIDENCE..., now occupied by Mrs. Edlin at the yearly rent of £40." 3. "A respectable DWELLING HOUSE... with Two Acres and a Half of first—class Meadowland adjoining..., now in the occupation of Mr. Henry Jarvis and Mr. John Jarvis." 4. "TWO respectable modern—built COTTAGES,,., now in the occupation of Mr. Henry Vye and Mr. Wm. Williams, at the yearly rent of £10 each." 5. "THREE cottages with the gardens and appurtenances thereto belonging, situated in Malthouse Lane..., occupied by Harlow, Austin and Gimber, at the yearly rent of 2s. 6d. each." 6. "THREE similar cottages, adjoining Lot 5 ..., now in the occupations of Munns, Wilson and Beakes."c Since some village businesses were family concerns which were handed down from one generation to another they were rarely offered for sale, but two advertisements have been found from Bridge. "To be sold by auction, by Messrs. Collard and Ashenden, At the White Horse Inn, Bridge, on Friday the 5rd. of November 1854 at Three o'clock in the Afternoon to the minute by order of the Mortgagee under a power of sale. A FREEHOLD MESSUAGE or TENEMENT and SHOP with the Yard, Garden, and Appurtenances there unto belonging, situate in Bridge Street in the Parish of Bridge, in the County of Kent, and now in the occupation of Mr. Daniel Williams at the low Rent of £12 per annum." (17) 77, "Bridge, nr. Canterbury, To Brewers and Others, Leach and Son, will sell by Auction On Tuesday l7th.March 1868 on the Premises all the BREWING PLANT UTENSILS IN TRADE, HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE and OTHER EFFECTS of Mr. John Burch, Brewer, (under a Bill of Sale)". (18) THE BRIDGE POOR LAW UNION The Board of Guardians The Bridge Poor Law Union was fairly widely reported in the local newspapers, either through advertisements for tenders or for staff, or by reports of events at the workhouse, but, unlike the Canterbury Union, reporters were not admitted to meetings of the Guardians who during May 1860 "rejected a proposition for the admission of reporters to their meetings." (19) Board members were elected annually, and the 1840 "Notice of The Annual Election of Guardians of the Poor" was accompanied by a specimen nomination form. (20) FORM (A) Nomination Paper for the Parish of Name of Quality and Qualification of the Person calling of Person proposed proposed the perion Name of as . propose Descrip— Amount of proposer guardian . tion of assess— qualifying ment premises Three weeks later the first meeting of the Bridge Union for the current year was reported with the Rev. Charles Hnghes Hallet as Chairman pro. tem. It was proposed by Mr. Brice, and seconded by Mr. Dowsett, and carried unanimously that Mr. Charles Collard, be appointed Chairman for the year. Mr. Thomas Collard proposed and Mr. Pilcher seconded, and the meeting accepted Mr. Pope as vice—Chairman. (21) The Guardians might conclude each term of office with some form of celebration, such as in April 1849, when "The retiring members of the Board of Guardians dined together... at the White Horse Inn. Charles Collard, Esq., of Wickham Court presided, and R. Brice, Esq., of Bridge Place officiated as vice- Chairman. The party was numerous and dinner was served up in a style which gave the greatest satisfaction to all present." (22) It was typical of the style of Victorian reporting to lavish praise as and when it was felt appropriate to do so. 78: THE CLERK AND OTHER STAFF OF THE UNION A letter of resignation was included in The Kentish Gazette of 14th July 1840. "To the Guardians of the Bridge Union GENTLEMEN, FINDING that the Duties I have had to perform as Clerk to your Board have not met with the Approbation of the Poor Law Commissioners, I beg leave to RESIGN THE SITUATION. I remain, Gentlemen, Your obedient servant, HERBERT COLLARD. firidge, July 10th." (23) The same edition also invited applications for this now vacant post: "CLERK TO THE BRIDGE UNION The Guardians of the BRIDGE UNION will meet at the BOARD Room of the UNION WORKHOUSE, BRIDGE, on FRIDAY, the 24th July, for the purpose of Electing a CLERK. The salary will be £60 per annum. Testimonials of character and offers of service must be left at the Workhouse, Bridge, on or before 25rd of July. CHARLES COLLARD, Chairman." (24) William Forth was elected Clerk and he occupied this post until his death on 1 April 1865. He clearly carried out his duties efficiently since on 10 June 1856 it was reported how the Guardians had "presented to Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Forth, Jun., a very handsome silver tea pot, from the establishment of Messrs. Mason of this city, for the satisfactory manner in which they have always discharged their several duties as ‘master and matron, during the time they have been at the union." (25) Two years later a special meeting of the Bridge Guardian was convened when "The Chairman proposed that an advance of £20 per annum should be added to the salary of Mr. FORTH, the clerk, [E197 merited such an acknowledgement of his long and faithful services, he having performed the duties of clerk and other offices in the union for nearly 23 years. The proposal was carried by a large majority." (26) Following William Forth's death on 1 April 1865 at the age of 70, The Kentish Gazette regretted to announce his unfortunate and sudden demise on the previous Saturday evening. He had visited Canterbury that day and had"appeared to be in the enjoyment of his usual health." He "was highly esteemed by his private friends, and respected by all with whom the discharge of his public duties brought him into contact." (27) 79. when it came to placing an advertisement for a new Clerk, the Guardians resolved to pay an annual salary of £60 which was "a reduction of £40 on the amount paid to Mr.Forth." (28) The new clerk was to be paid no more than had been paid twentynfive years earlier to William Forth when he first took up the post, despite which there was no shortage of applicants, with Mr. A. Fielding, a Canterbury solicitor, obtaining the office with twelve votes to Mr. T. Ashenden's (a descendant of the now prominent Canterbury firm of estate agents) eleven votes. (29) The Clerk assumed responsibility for placing advertisements in the local newspapers for staff and for tenders for the Union. One such advertisement for a schoolmistress in 1850 pointed out that "The Salary of the late Schoolmistress was Twelve Pounds per annum. The continuance or increase of this Salary will depend on the competency of the person e1ected...In addition to the Salary, Rations, Coats, Candles and a furnished apartment will be allowed." (30) Between then and the 1870's a higher salary was paid, since in 1872 a salary of £20 per annum was advertised, "with board, f rnished apartments and washing", but also the person appointed was expected to be"a member of the ESTABLISHED CHURCH, unmarried and a good needlewoman... and to devote the whole of her time to the performance of the duties of the same." (51) In 1868 the schoolmaster was expected to be "duly qua1ified,...a Single man or widower, a member of the Church of England... Salary £21 per annum Zbut/ a higher sum may be awarded by the Poor Law Board, on the report of the School Inspector." (32) TENDERS FOR WORKHOUSE PROVJSIONS, ETC. The most common tenders related to supplying provisions to feed the inmates of the Workhouse. Bread was also delivered on occasions to the outdoor poor. The successful trader would then supply the Union's needs for three months. Less frequently, the Guardians would meet to receive tenders for the supply of clothing, materials and foot-wear, and most ominously for the supply of coffins. Those tenders relating to provisions provide some idea of the diet appropriate to a pauper. It appears to have changed little over this period. One typical invitation for tenders was advertised as follows during March 1843: "BRIDGE UNION Tenders will be received by the Board of Guardians at the Union Workhouse, Bridge, on Friday the 17th instant, at or before Eleven o'clock in the forenoon, for the supply of the undermentioned articles for the use of the workhouse. Second Bread at per 4 lb. loaf; Second Flour at per sack; Beef without bone, Necks of Mutton, and Suet at per stone; Gloucester and Dutch Cheese, Second Limerick Butter; 80. Scotch Barley, Raw Sugar, Yellow Soap, Soda and Salt at per cwt; Black Tea at per lb; Candles at per dozen lbs. and South Durham Coals at per ton. to be delivered in sacks; Also for the supply of Second Bread at per 4 lb. loaf for Out Poor, to be delivered where the Relieving Officer shall direct. Persons tendering will be required to produce samples of Cheese, Butter, Tea, Sugar and Soap. Every article required must be of good quality and delivered free of expense. ' By order of the Board. William Forth, Clerk." (55) PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE WORKHOUSE IN 1870 In 1870 The Kentish Gazette printed a correspondence between Robert Lake, who thirty years previously had been the Bridge Tithe Apportioner, and George Dering, concerning "Contemplated Alterations in the Bridge Union House." Mr. Lake opposed the intended alterations in favour of "a measure (if compulsory so much the better) calculated to improve the dwellings of the honest and industrious class" which would raise "the moral standard of the labouring people", added to which, "the old and children deserve attention; .not so the able-bodied inmates... I am decidedly against any large outlay in our Union house... I believe the district was scarcely less able to meet extra charges than at present." Mr. Dering in justifying the intended alterations referred to a recent report from the Poor Law Inspector, Mr. Farnall, which noted how "the construction of this House renders a strict classification of the inmates impossible." Moreover "the late Poor Law Inspector, Mr. Langley... was very desirous that the Bridge Union House should undergo extensive alterations. The Poor Law Inspector who preceded Mr. Langley, Sir John Walsham, in a letter I received from him made use of the following expression — ‘I hope I shall not give offence when I say that, provided all the inhabitants were removed to a place of safety, I should be glad to see the Bridge Union House burnt to the ground.'" Mr. Dering believed that there were very few able~bodied labourers in the workhouse. The inmates who were "deserving of compassion more than of blame" were "old, infirm and invalide". (34) Extensions and improvements to the workhouse were undertaken in preparation for which The Kentish Gazette of 9 April l872 reported twelve tenders which had been considered "For building casual wards, stable and coach-house, and other works at the workhouse, Bridge Union, Mr. B. Adkins, architect. Quantities supplied: — Featherstone £2,202. 18s., Gaskin and Godden £2,175, Stephenson £2,157, Stiff £2,049, Epps £2,047, Richardson £2,042, Harnett £2,040, Wilson £2,028. 155. Bourne £1,987. lOs. Toad (accepted) £1,925, Judge £1,897, and Woodcock £1,837". (35) 81. Accepting the lowest tender was not always the overriding priority. The Guardians showed some concern for quality and value for money. INQUESTS AND COURT CASES CONCERNING THE BRIDGE UNION. Over the years several inquests or court cases were reported, as during December 1852 when "Mr. Delassaux held an inquest here... on the body of a child, two years old, named Gilbert Richard Sidders. It was taken ill on Saturday with an inflammation in the throat, when a blister was applied and some powders ordered to be taken. The child died on Monday. Verdict — Natural death." (36) Eight years later a "Sudden Death in the Workhouse" resulted in an inquest being held at the White Horse Inn, "on the body of Thomas Austen, 78 years of age, a pauper". The deputy coroner, Mr. Fox, was informed that "an old man who slept in the same ward heard the deceased make a gurgling noise: but he took no notice, as such a noise had often been made by the deceased", whereupon thv jury returned a verdict of "Died from Natural Causes". (37) Minor offences which occurred in and around Canterbury were usually tried at the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions. Some cases concerned Bridge Union, such as when "John King and John Widderson were had before E. Foss, Esq., charged with breaking all the windows in the vagrant Ward of the Bridge Union. It appeared that the prisoners, who had travelled the country in search of work, were admitted by an order for the night; but as no food was given to them, they broke the windows purposely to be sent to prison. Mr. Forth, the master of the Union, stated that by an order from the Board he was not allowed to give food, unless in cases of extreme destitution. The prisoners in defence said they had walked twenty—six miles that day without food. Mr. Foss sentenced them to be imprisoned for one week but told them that sentence would have been more severe, had any bread been given them. The worthy magistrate told Mr. Forth that he wished the Guardianto know that he highly disapproved of the order that they had made." (38) On 15 May 1860 the following conviction was also reported: "Henry Johnson, alias ‘Deaf Burke‘, an able—bodied pauper, inmate of the Bridge Union, was charged by the master with refusing to work. The defendant, having been previously convicted of a similar offence, was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour." (39) An assault case arose in July l872 when one inmate attacked another who had entered his bed—room to remove some articles from under the bed. (40) Typically those cases which were reported were of a relatively trivial nature, and were to be expected from among inmates some of whom had previous criminal convictions. The magistrates at the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions were also empowered to authorise changes in the Poor Rate, as, for instance, during February 1860. "NEW POOR RATE — At the St. Augustine's.Petty Sessions on Saturday the magistrates signed a new poor—rate of 4d. in the pmmdfm"mepmfiflL"(M) 82, TESTIVITIES AND CELEBRATIONS IN THE WORKHOUSE Not every day in the life of the Workhouse was one of abject misery. Paupers joined in the festivities which surrounded any notable event in the village, thanks largely to the benevolence of such propertied families as the Conynghams. They also enjoyed annual Christmas and New Year celebrations as on 1 January 1876. "NEW YEARS DAY AT THE WORKHOUSE — As has been the custom for many years past, the inmates of the Union were liberally entertained on New Year's Day. A dinner of roast beef and plum pudding was kindly provided for them by the Marquis Conyngham, and the wards were visited by the Earl and Countess, of Mount-Charles, Viscount Slane and Miss Parker, who also contributed to the happiness of the occasion by the seasonable gifts of tea, tobacco, snuff, and cake, his Lordship presenting his kind presents in person with a word of greeting to each recipient. There were also present, the Rev. F. T, Vine, Rev. R. H. Cautley, and Mr. Pilcher (Steward to Lord Conyngham)W (42) During May 1864 Mr. Collard celebrated his retirerint after twenty- one years as chairman of the Bridge Union, during which time he had "discharged the onerous duty of the office with credit to himself and advantage to the ratepayers," by "ordering a dinner of good old English fare — roast beef and plum pudding." (45) Occasionally the pauper children received a special treat, as on 21 January 1868 when Miss Parker provided a substantial tea; following which they were entertained by Mr. Linam's magic lantern, before Miss Parker and the other ladies presented prizes to the children.(44) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BRIDGE UNION RURAL SANITARY AUTHORITY The local government of the area was profoundly affected by the establishment of the Bridge Union Rural Sanitary Authority, in relation to which during June, 1874, The Kentish Gazette publicised Dr. R%binson's report on the district: "CONSTITUTION OF DISTRICT - the portion of the Union which is placed under the jurisdiction of this board for sanitary administration extends over 41,594 acres and includes 2,061 inhabited houses, with a population of lO,243,., with the exception of those employed at the paper mills, nearly all the residents are engaged in agricultural pursuits... GENERAL SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS - The greater part of the water supply of the district, which is derived from wells sunk in the chalk, is pure in character... The means for excremental disposal are generally rude and ill—contrived... The causes of enteric fever which every now and again occur in these localities afford indications of the ever—present causes of disease and show a necessity for a complete change of the present arrangements. SCARLATINA EPIDEMIC - Scarlatina [has beep7 the principal zymotic and not only destroyed more lives than any other of this class, but was also the most wide—spread one. Bridge and Petham suffered especially from the epidemic, in consequence of the studied concealment of the early cases which occurred." (45) 84. value 1s., the property of Mr. George Crothall, of Bridge". (50) When, during August 1870 "a tramp, giving his name as Campbell, was charged with stealing half—a-pound of sausages, value 4d., belonging to George Pegden, of Bridge", he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to ten days’ hard labour. (51) Punishments imposed at Quarter Sessions were invariably of a harsher nature, as and when during March 1872 George Edwin Fryer was convicted of housebreaking and stealing £1. 9s. lld. from George Fryer of Bridge, on 20 January 1872, for which he was sentenced to six months‘ hard labour. (52) At the other extreme is an instance of a theft being reported during 1876 with no culprit being taken involving three five pound notes being stolen from the Post Office "under circum- stances which would point to the theft having been committed by an adept". (55) Assault cases were particularly newsworthy material with detailed reports of the evidence of both prosecution and defence witnesses. Sometimes it was difficult to prove cases either way, especially when the evidence was confused and unsubstantiated. Defendants who were believed to be guilty were usually fined and ordered to pay costs, which commonly exceeded any fine. The following instance was reported in The Kentish Gazette on 7 August 1860. "ASSAULT — At the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions, on Saturday, before W. Delmar Esq.. T. H. Mackay Esq., Capt. Young, Geo. Neame Esq., and Wm. Plummer Esq., Richard Eldridge, labourer of Lower Hardres, was charged with assaulting William Noble, labourer, at Bridge, on the 20th July. The complainant stated that on the day in question, he was seated on a tug belonging to his master when the defendant came up and pushed him off on the road, hurting his shoulder very much. The defendant then got a pole and "poked" him with it several times, remarking that he would like to knock his brains out. — A witness was called who saw the assault. - The defendant admitted that he pushed the complainant off the tug but the complainant had scandalised both him and his Mrs. several times, having reported that he had nothing to eat in the house one Monday evening. The bench fined the defendant 5s. and 10s. costs, or in default of payment to be imprisoned 14 days - [he was7 allowed a fortnight to pay the money." (54) Christmas 1869 was marred by a stabbing incident, following which John and Thomas Oxley of Denton accused the village constable, William Harnden, of stabbing them on Christmas Day in a scuffle as they and three other men were dismounting from a trap in the village in the early hours. Although they claimed to have been sober at the time, a defence witness reported on how when he had seen John Oxley the next day, he had admitted that he fell out of the cart as it was the easiest way to get out. Harnden, who denied the charge was committed for trial, bail being accepted. (55) 85. All sorts of cases were heard and decisions taken at the Petty Sessions, some of which involved children. The following affiliation case was reported during August 1870: "John George Wilson was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute to the maintenance of a male bastard child, of which he was the alleged father. Defendant did not appear. Jane Elizabeth Gosling stated that she was 21 years of age and was in the service of Mr. Tucker, of Bridge. She first became acquainted with the defendant in May 1869. He paid attention to her and promised her marriage. The child was born on the 23rd May last. He promised to keep the child and to pay all expenses. Ellen Gosling, mother of the plaintiff, stated that the defendant had admitted he was the father of the child, and promised to maintain it. — The bench made an order of 2s. a week and expenses." (57) During October 1876 James Kemp was summoned for having left his three infant children chargeable to the Bridge Union since 15 July. What was an offence of desertion was proved by Mr. Charles Holman, the relieving officer, whereupon the defendant, "a big strapping looking fellow, who said he could not keep his children, was sent to gaol for six weeks with hard labour". (58) With the introduction of compulsory elementary education parents or guardians could be forced to send their children to a public elementary school, as happened during July 1878 when George Willis and George Davidson, both of Bridge, were ordered to appear before the bench on summonses which had been executed by the School Attendance Board of the Bridge Union. Evidence having been given, "the magistrates made an order, in each case, that the children should be sent to school". (59) There were cases and pronouncements which are not easily categorised, so that on 15 May 1860, for instance, it was reported that the Magistrates at the St. Augustine's Petty Sessions had signed a lighting rate of Ed. in the pound for the Bridge lighting district. (60) The magistrates also concerned themselves with unlawful hawking, unmarked carts and stray dogs. Henry Reed was fined 2s. 6d. with 9s. 5d. costs in October, 1872, after being found guilty of hawking without a licence in Bridge, where he had offered note paper for sale while in possession of an old and expired certificate for the metropolitan district. Failure to meet the fine incurred seven days‘ imprisonment. (61) During November 1874, "Mr. Henry Harvey from Bridge was summoned... on a charge of having allowed a cart to be used without his name and description being painted thereon and having admitted the fact, ZEE7 was fined ls. and 8s. costs." Also at the same hearing, the Rev. James Hughes Hallett, of Petham, who did not appear, was fined ls. with lOs. costs "for having allowed a donkey cart to be used without having his name painted thereon", (62) which shows that the clergy clearly came within the confines of the law. Social status carried the obligation to set a good example so that the Petty Sessions really showed their muscle when Major Henry Castle, one of the leading landowners of Bridge received a summons during August 1878, "for allowing a dog belonging to him to be at large on the 26th of July. A police-constable found the dog in the street on the evening of the 26th ult., and on finding out the next day that it belonged to Major Castle he took it to his house. It was a Parmenian dog and the officer said he had never seen it about the street before. Fined ls. and 9s. costs". (63) 86. The magistrates were indulging in a form of consumer protection when in October 1876 they fined George Lott, who was a marine store dealer in Bridge, 20s. and 9s. costs for having seven weights in his possession which were light. The defendant claimed that it was he who suffered since he used the weights only to buy in rags and bones, having had no opportunity to get the weights inspected previously. William Wilson, a beer-retailer and general provision dealer, was also fined ls. with lOs. costs for having two incorrect scales in his possession. (64) THE CANTERBURY RACES "They have lately had races at Canterbury; and the Mayor and Aldermen, in order to get the Prince Leopold to attend them, presented him with the Freedom of the City; but it rained all the time and he did not comei" William Cobbett, Rural Rides, Canterbury, 4th Sept., 1825.. Bridge was famous even in the eighteenth century far its proximity to the Canterbury races which as one of the foremost sporting attractions of East Kent were much publicised in the local newspapers, whether in the form of advertisements, correspondence or reports. The fact that the race course was on Barham Downs greatly influenced the village of Bridge, in such matters as the provision of stabling and jockeys, and in the business which the meetings must have brought to its inns and other traders. The main meeting was usually held sometime in late August or September, having been once a four day event which was reduced to two days or a single day, though still receiving Royal patronage in the form of Her Majesty's Plate. In 1840 the meeting was still sufficiently important to be accompanied by "GALAS DURING THE RACES", for "it will be seen on reference to our advertising columns that St. Peter's Gardens, in this city, will boast unusual attractions during the races. Mr. Dorby the celebrated pyrotechnist is making extensive preparations for exhibiting fireworks, gladiatorial shows, Hampton's balloons and a variety of entertaining amusements." (65) The fortunes of the Canterbury Races fluctuated considerably, with an evident decline in their former grandeur during the 1840's. This decline prompted The Kentish Gazette to observe that the l845 races were "scarcely worthy of mention, either as regards the nature of the sport or the attendance of the gentry of the county...Z;inc§7 on neither day was the grandstand graced with more than half a dozen members of Kentish families." (66) What was perhaps the sensational highlight of the meeting occurred towards the close of the first day, caused "by the driver of a van (named Bangham) coming down Bridge Hill at a rapid pace. The vehicle was overturned and smashed to atoms throwing the passengers in various directions, one of whom, beside the driver, was much injured, though we 8?. and wretchedly burlesqued on Thursday andFriday last." Greatly lamented was the passing of those days when the grandstand had been "the nucleus of fashion, of life, of the high—born, the rich, the elegant, the lovely and the gay. Beauty in all its phases, the blonde, the brunette, the lily, the rose all shone resplendent there, a sight the boast of Kent that Kent alone could boast," but in 1847 this "once celebrated arena of wealth and rank was partially tenanted by a few citizens of "lowly degree", and The Kentish Gazette could only bemoan "this marked desertion, this sudden and general repudiation of the races by the gentry of the county." (68) A somewhat rosier picture prevailed in 1850 when on the opening day "The weather was fine, and a large concourse assembled to witness the sport. The usual concomitants of races, refreshment booths, various games of chance, fortune telling, 'elastic brothers‘, archery, 'cockshies', itinerary musicians, etc. - proved scarcely less attractive sources of amusement... than the racing itself." The second day attracted "a much more numerous and fashionable attendance than yesterday, the joint effects, doubtless of the remarkably fine weather and the anticipation of superior sport," which was marred only by the fact that "some of the light—fingered profession obtained some booty and succeeded in getting clear off." (69) The 1850's did not produce a sustained boom. The first day of the 1852 meeting witnessed "an almost utter absence of gentry," (70) while in 1854 "the company was very meagre, nor was the sport of all that pleasing a nature" but typical of the years was the race—card as advertised for that meeting. "CANTERBURY RACES Thursday and Friday August 24th and 25th 1854. To start each day at half—past One o'clock. FIRST DAY. A SWEHPSTAKE of 2 Sovs. each with 15 added... The winner to be sold by auction immediately after the Race and any other surplus over the selling price to go to the fund. One mile. The CANTERBURY HANDICAP. Five Sovs. each, 2 forfeit with 50 added. About one mile and a half. A SWEEPSTAKE of 2 Sovs. each, with a purse of Sovs. added. For Horses the property of Officers of the Army and Militia quartered in the County of Kent, and to be ridden by Officers; llst. lOlb. each. SECOND DAY. The CITY PLATE, Heats about one mile and a half. The sum to be given will depend upon the subscriptions received from the City of Canterbury and will be named at the time of entry. 88. HER MAJESTY'S PLATE of 100 Guineas. Two miles. A SWEEPSTAKE of 5 Sovs. each with 20 added. Heats — about one mile and a half. Gentlemen riders; professionals to carry 6lbs. extra. A SWEEPSTAKE of 2 Sovs. each, with 15 added. For horses the property of Officers of the Army and Militia quartered in the County of Kent, and to be ridden by Officers; llst. 7lbs... Heats - about one mile and a half, over four flights of hurdles; the winner to pay for the hurdles. The horses to be named for all the races to the Clerk of the Course, at the White Horse Inn, Bridge, on Wednesday, August 25rd, between the hours of two and four in the afternoon... No gambling of any description will be allowed here. Entrance to the course — Four wheeled carriages, 33; two wheeled, 2s; Saddle horses, ls." (71) Bridge was actually represented in the races by at least . u . . ..g-._ T):-Ll_-,1 ru,, _ 89. 1863 produced a successful meeting held over two days with the support of the local gentry when "a good programme was prepared and it attracted good fields for the different races." (77) By 1864 both the South-Eastern and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Companies were running special excursion trains at reduced fares to Canterbury for the Races, while fourteen years later these railways also conveyed race-horses to Canterbury or to Bekesbourne "at a single fare for the double journey." (78) The Kentish Gazette for l872 could not fault the quality of the assembled company, since "fine weather favoured" the first day of the meeting, when "some capital racing was witnessed," and "the attendance although not large was exceedingl select." The second day was noted for "a goodly sprinkling of th§/ equipages of local gentry." (79) Likewise the attendance on each day of 1874 "was numerous and fashionable while the band of the Cavalry Depot discoursed sweet music in the intervals of racing." (80) By 1878 the Canterbury Races were approaching their final days. Each meeting was reduced to one day only, and the assembled company was noted less for its gentry than for the officers fi m the Barracks. Traditionally, a Spring Meeting had been held as part of the Easter Holiday festivities. It was revised in 1840 by "the spirited exertions of one or two individual citizens", (81) but two years later "the Canterbury Spring meeting at Barham Downs... did not afford the usual sport. Mr. Sherrard's horse walked over the course for the Easter Plate. 7 A match or two of no great interest followed, and the sports of the day were wound up by donkey racing and other minor amusements." (82) At the Spring Meeting of 1847 it was decided to prohibit booths from the Downs, a decision which was welcomed by The Kentish Gazette, "There can be no doubt that considerable damage is sustained by the neighbouring residents, alike in their plantations and hedge—rows, by the turbulent persons who have been accustomed to stay in the booths drinking till midnight. The keepers of these places have only themselves to thank for the deprivation."(85) Booths or no booths, the meeting itself was a relatively dull affair: "This meeting which may be considered as held in memory of the ‘Easter Plate’ races, took place at Barham Downs on Tuesday, on which occasion there was a tolerable attendance of equestrian visitors, consisting principally of the gentlemen connected with the East Kent Hunt: but of pedestrians few were present, though the afternoon was bright and fine. This circumstance may in a great degree be attributed to the prohibition of the sale of refreshments on the race course." (84) Canterbury's Spring Meeting became very much the prerogative of the hunting interest, the races being confined to horses that belonged to the ‘East Kent Earth—stopping Fund‘. Sometimes they were expected to have been in at the death of a certain number of brace of foxes, (85) but by l852 the attendance was very limited. (86) Spring meetings thereafter were abandoned until 1872 when "an attempt to revive the Easter Race meeting on Barham Downs on Tuesday last proved more successful than could have been expected, owing to the liberal support gimaito the meeting, as an Easter Hunt Meeting by Lord Guil- ford and C. s. Hardy Esq." (87) 90. Steeplechasing provided an alternative activity for those ‘young bloods’ who experienced insufficient excitement in hunting or racing. alt was rough riding with few if any rules, which enabled Captain Boss to inform Lord Kennedy before a match that "'1 understand that we may ride over each hther and kill peach other if we can ?' ‘Just so’ was the reply." (88) The neighbourhood of Barham Downs witnessed a steeplechase in 1845; the event was open to all England and some first rate horses from different parts of the country were expected to take part in the "strifes of the day." (89) The event actually took place on 24 March and was reported in The Kentish Gazette on the following day. "Canterbury presented an animated appearance from an early hour, long before the time for starting, hundreds of pedestrians were seen wending their muddy way to the scene of competition — loud in their surmises of the important events of the day. t The starting field where the horses were placed was truly picturesque. Every description of vehicle and spectators of every class and age crowded the spot... Never before, in the recollection of the oldest Kent sportsman has such a scene been witnessed and assembled for such a purpose . near Canterbury. Thousands of people thronged the line of chase and all was animation, anxiety and eagerness. The first Chase was for a sweepstake of ten sovereigns M each with 100 added. The line marked out for the running was over three miles of a fair hunting country of the form of a figure of eight, commencing in the field called Bridge Place, belonging to Mr. Brice and finishing in the park not far from the starting place... There were nearly thirty « leaps, many of them stiff fences, and a brook." (90) SOCIAL LIBE AND PATRONAGE IN BRIDGE Pattenmsof social life in Bridge varied with social status. Larger households had their own life styles and while the middle and upper classes organized their own amusements their patronage and benevolence were often important in providing certain entertain- ments and active interests for the lower classes. Much social life centred on the public houses, the church, the local school and aaii .lt,ral shows ao.- -~ ' ‘ ‘ g.‘ a an A .u ‘-0 --