The Act of 1662 (as modified from time-to-time) specified that settlement
might be obtained after a period of 40 days’ residence in a parish,[3]
(new residents having first notified the overseers of their arrival in the
parish) or the rental of property valued at £10 per annum or more, at a time when
the average labourer’s cottage was fifty shillings a year. While the population
of Thames Ditton in 1755 was made up of about 190 families, of which approximately
forty families’ occupied houses with a value of £10 or more, meaning that just over
20 per cent of householders would have qualified for settlement in the parish
on that basis.
Temporary workers were expected to
provide the new parish with a certificate of settlement from their parish of
origin, while other migrants might be required to provide a financial indemnity
against their obtaining settlement. When Henry Johns moved to Thames Ditton he
brought with him a certificate from the overseers of Godalming, Surrey
addressed to the overseers of Thames Ditton acknowledging that Henry Johns, his
wife and son were legally settled in Godalming. In accordance with standard
practice, the certificate (dated December 1750) was signed by two overseers,
two churchwardens, two justices and two witnesses from Godalming. The same
certificate was subsequently relied on, not only by the holder but also by his
son. The overseers of Thames Ditton received six shillings from Godalming in
1785, and again in 1819, for the keep of Robert Johns, the son. On the later
occasion, the overseers of Thames Ditton wrote to their counter-parts in
Godalming, asking them to grant Robert a weekly allowance.
Subsequent acts extended settlement
rights to those who served one year in an annual public office; those who paid
public taxes; apprentices of a resident master;[4]
and unmarried persons hired as servants for a year and a day.[5] When
examined in September 1781, William Keene declared that his last place of
settlement was in Putney where he had served an apprenticeship in 1750.
However, employers were able to avoid the year and a day rule by terminating
employment short of a full year. The examination of Henry Collins in 1744
reveals that he had been employed in Mitcham for a year less three days. His
employer, whether acting independently or in accordance with the parish policy,
avoided the creation of a new settlement for the migrant worker.
The practice in Thames
Ditton was for the overseers to take any newcomer without a certificate before
two justices, at which point he or she was examined as to the place of settlement,
following which an order might be made to remove him or her from the parish. A
large (though incomplete) set of settlement examinations have survived from
Thames Ditton.[6] They
provide evidence that some people were examined on more than one occasion, most
probably when individual circumstances appeared to have changed. While two
justices signed removal orders, it was the overseers who decided who would be
brought for the justices for such an order to be made.
Table 1: Determination of
settlement, Thames Ditton, 1729-1785.
|
Basis of
settlement
|
87
|
%
|
|
Birth |
13
|
14.9
|
|
Marriage
|
6
|
6.9
|
|
Apprenticeship
|
14
|
16.1
|
|
Employment
|
46
|
52.9
|
|
Rental of a
property valued at over £10 p.a.*
|
7
|
8.0
|
|
Grant of
settlement from another parish
|
1
|
1.1
|
* Of which two examinations
included serving as a parish officer and paying local taxes.
Table 1 includes thirteen cases where settlement
was determined by birth, including ‘inherited’ settlements. Edward Elliott was
born in Dorking, although his father’s last settlement was in Chiddingfold, Surrey,
where he had been an apprentice. On the basis of a child following the father’s
settlement, Elliott’s settlement was determined to have been in Chiddingfold.
A wife’s settlement lay with that of her husband, which
was of particular relevance if she was widowed (or abandoned) by her husband.
The examination of Mary Hawkins revealed that her husband had served an
apprenticeship in Billinghurst, Sussex where he was last settled, and that he
had deserted her five years previously. An order was issued for the removal of Mary
and her two children (aged six and one years) to Billinghurst, irrespective of
her place of birth or absence of familial connections in Billinghurst. An
earlier examination of Mary revealed that her younger child was the
illegitimate child of Matthew More of Thames Ditton, who had since left the
parish. The fact of parentage gave her son a right to settlement in Thames Ditton,
therefore, the overseers of Billinghurst were entitled to request that the
overseers of Thames Ditton reimburse them for of any relief necessary to
support the child.
In contrast, the examination of
Hannah Smith revealed that her husband’s last legal place of settlement was
North Chaple, Sussex, that he had left her ten years previously and that her 10
year-old child did not live with her in the parish. Nevertheless, no removal
order appears to have followed. While the absence of a removal order cannot be
taken at face value, it is possible that a woman aged between 30 and 35 years
was considered to be young enough to support herself, particularly as she had
no dependants living with her, although she was still of an age where she could
have more children. Elizabeth Anderson was fortunate to escape the fate of
removal to her husband’s home in Ireland. The fact that her husband had left
her twelve years previously was not an issue but Ireland lay outside the
jurisdiction of the justices. However, the justices were able to establish Elizabeth’s
settlement in the adjoining parish of Long Ditton, based on her previous
employment, and ordered her removal.
The dilemma for the overseers was
whether to assess a resident and create a new settlement, or to withhold an assessment
and thereby lose out on additional income for the parish, particularly in those
instances where a wealthy resident would have made a substantial contribution
to the rate.[7] Migrant
worker, Henry Comfort, was assessed in 1735 and 1745 on property in Thames
Ditton valued at £4, however, the rate books for 1765 records that he had ‘no
certificate’ and was no longer assessed. Nevertheless, the examination of his
son, Philip Comfort, in July 1786 records that both he and his father had a
certificate of settlement from Kingston upon Thames. By withholding the claim
for contribution to the parish rate from Henry Comfort, not only had the overseers
of Thames Ditton successfully managed to avoid an elderly man gaining a right
to settlement and relief but also that of his son.
As demonstrated in Table 2 below, the
type of people ordered to be removed from Thames Ditton is evenly split between
those who had become chargeable and those who were likely to become chargeable,
suggesting that the vestry were just as concerned with potential claimants as
with those in need of immediate relief. Unsurprisingly, the majority of persons
removed from Thames Ditton were those least able to support themselves, i.e.,
women and children.
Table 2: Removals in and
out of Thames Ditton 1726-1799.
|
59
|
Out of Thames
Ditton
|
28
|
Into Thames
Ditton
|
|
29
|
Likely to become
chargeable
|
9
|
Likely to become chargeable
|
|
30
|
Have become chargeable
|
19
|
Have become chargeable
|
|
59
|
Location
|
28
|
Location
|
|
40
|
Moved to another parish in Surrey
|
21
|
Moved from another parish in Surrey
|
|
12
|
Moved to Middx/ London
|
5
|
Moved from Mddx/ London
|
|
7
|
Moved to other
Parishes
|
2
|
Moved from other Parishes
|
|
59
|
Status
|
28
|
Status
|
|
21
|
Single woman
|
13
|
Single woman
|
|
6
|
Woman with child/children (4)
Man with child/children (2)
|
4
|
Woman with child/children (3)
Man with child/children (1)
|
|
1
|
Child
|
2
|
Child
|
|
16
|
Family
|
4
|
Family
|
|
8
|
Couple
|
2
|
Couple
|
|
7
|
Single man
|
3
|
Single man
|
With an increasing
number of people moving in search of work, parishes such as Thames Ditton which
lay on a main route to London would have been concerned to avoid incomers
obtaining any rights to relief, even if it meant falsifying a receipt to cover
up a potentially costly mistake. In 1778 the Thames Ditton vestry sought
counsel’s opinion regarding the settlement and removal of William Verrill, a
tenant who had paid the poor rate on the house he occupied in the parish. Counsel,
Mr Rous, advised that if the name of landlord or tenant had been omitted from
the assessment, then it became an assessment of the occupier, the poor rate
being a tax payable by the occupier. The overseer for Thames Ditton was blamed
for receiving the rate from the tenant and he was instructed by the vestry to issue
a receipt for the payment which included the statement, ‘Rec’d of Mr Boorer (by
the hands of William Verrill)’. Counsel’s opinion was that the receipt was
invalid because it appeared to have been intended to prevent a settlement, when
the officer clearly received payment from the pauper tenant. In that instance,
the vestry risked the cost of obtaining the opinion of counsel (his fee was one
guinea) because the potential cost to the parish of granting relief was far
greater.
The evidence from Thames Ditton (Table
2) is that the incidence of travel outside the parish of settlement was much
greater among people with a settlement in another Surrey parish or from
neighbouring Middlesex and London. Only three orders concerned removal to a
parish any significant distance from the parish. When John Green, his wife and
three children were declared ‘likely to become chargeable’ in 1746, they were
ordered to be removed to Boston, Lincolnshire where Green had gained settlement
through an apprenticeship to a miller. In 1777 Clement Elliott became
chargeable and was removed to Berry, Sussex, where he had worked eighteen years
previously as a farm labourer. Likewise, when John Selly and his five children
became chargeable in 1783 they were removed to West Pernard, Somerset, where Selly
held a certificate of settlement issued three years previously. The rules of
settlement provided a man or woman with the opportunity to travel in order to
find work and provided the receiving parish with the benefit of labour when
needed. While the new parish was able to return a person to his or her place of
settlement when work was no longer available, they were equally obliged to
receive their own pauper emigrants.
Parish officers did not necessarily undertake
removal procedures to remove those residents who were able to support
themselves and whose work supported the local economy; rather they acted to
protect any potential liabilities for relief. John Risbridger was examined in
1771, 1775 and 1778, at which later date an order was made for his removal. Despite
that, the rate book for 1795 records John Risbridger living in Thames Ditton in
a house valued at £15. In the intervening years Risbridger either obtained a
certificate from another parish or gained settlement in the parish through
occupation of a house valued at over £10.
The risk in failing to act upon a removal order was
that a new resident and his or her family members might subsequently acquire
settlement in the parish. John Skerving was examined in February 1775, when he declared
that he had gained a settlement in Wandsworth, having rented a house in that
parish for £10 per annum. He also declared that he had a wife with him in
Thames Ditton. A removal order was issued in respect of Skerving and his wife
on the grounds that they were ‘likely to become chargeable to the parish’. The
records show that Skerving was examined again in October 1778 when the same
details were provided, although no reference was made to the earlier removal
order and Skerving and his wife continued to live in the parish. When
Skerving’s widow was examined in February 1789 she was found to have gained a
settlement in her own right by way of continuous employment with the same
person.
Likewise, Elizabeth Morritt, a single woman living
in the parish, declared her place of settlement to be in Walton on the Hill
where she had worked for the same master for over one year. Although an order
was made for her removal on the basis that she was ‘likely to become chargeable
to the parish’, Elizabeth remained in Thames Ditton. Elizabeth was re-examined
December 1782, at which time she claimed settlement in the parish on the
grounds of her employment as a needlewoman with the same employer for over one
year. Elizabeth had been allowed to remain on the first occasion because she
had gainful employment and was able to maintain herself. The reason for the
second examination was most likely due to the birth of her ‘bastard’ child, the
father having been a temporary labourer in Kingston upon Thames, who had since
left the area. There being no information on the settlement of the father, the
overseers would have been obliged to accept that Elizabeth and her child had
gained a settlement in Thames Ditton.
Debate raged between historians Norma Landau and
Keith Snell as to whether the laws of settlement restricted an individual’s
freedom of movement or offered a guarantee of parish relief during periods of
poverty.[8] It
must be true that parishes which refused or restricted the issue of
certificates acted as a restriction on liberty. Nonetheless, movement continued
between parishes as the rules of settlement allowed parishes to control
mobility, without preventing it. Over the next few blogs I will consider eligibility
to indoor and outdoor relief once settlement in Thames Ditton was established.
If you have enjoyed reading this blog, please follow me using the link on right-hand panel.
If you have enjoyed reading this blog, please follow me using the link on right-hand panel.
[1] 13&14 Car. II c.12 (1662) an Act for the Better Relief of the Poor of
this Kingdom.
[2] Hindle, S. (2004) On the Parish? The
Micro-Politics of Poor Relief in Rural England c.1550-1750 Clarendon Press:
Oxford, p. 405.
[3] I James
II, c.17 (1685).[4] 3 & 4 Will & Mary, c.18 (1691).
[5] 8 & 9 Will III, c.30 (1697).
[6] Surrey History Centre, Woking (SHCW) 2568/10/1- 26 Settlement Examinations, 1728-1821: including some removal orders, bastardy papers and apprenticeship records.
[7] Landau, N (1995) ‘Who was subjected to the laws of settlement? Procedure under the settlement laws in eighteenth century England’ Agricultural History Review, 43, pp. 139-159, p. 158.
[8] Landau, N. (1988) ‘ The laws of settlement and the surveillance of immigration in eighteenth-century Kent’ Continuity and Change, vol. 3, pp. 391-420; Landau, ‘Who was subjected to the laws of settlement?; Snell, K.D.M. (1985) Annals of the Labouring Poor – Social Change and Agrarian England 1660-1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Snell, K.D.M. (1991) ‘Pauper Settlement and the right to poor relief in England and Wales’ Continuity and Change 6 (3), pp. 375-415.
No comments:
Post a Comment