Fragments of Two Centuries Part 5

What a village Workhouse was like may be gathered, by making due allowance for the difference in population, from the following particulars of the palatial establishment which did duty at Royston during the last, and for a third of the present century. It stood on the west side of the Warren next the London Road (now G.o.dfrey's terrace). It was a thatched building, occasionally mended with clay from the clay pit in the Green Walk valley. It had no water supply of its own, for the parish paid Daniell Ebb.u.t.t 5s. a year for the use of his well in 1774, raised to 7s. 6d. in 1777; while in 1805, water cost L4 a year; probably purchased of the water carrier at the door. It had a garden, for the parish paid, in 1772, for "Beans and Tatos" to plant in it. There was also a pig-sty attached, and the whole place was insured against fire for only 10s. a year premium, for L250 on the building and L50 on the contents.

The Workhouse children were taught to spin, and had the decided advantage of being taught to read and write, apparently, for their "schooling" cost the parish 2d. a head, paid to Henry Watson. The {40} Workhouse was regularly visited by two members of the Committee appointed in rotation to that office. In villages the Workhouse administration was open to the inspection of any ratepayer. Before the union of the two parishes in Royston there was a separate Workhouse for Royston, Cambs., situate in the Back Street. For a time after the union, two houses were used in Royston, Herts.--the "Old House" and "Whitehall." A Workhouse master or contractor, for feeding, clothing, employing, and taking care of the poor, generally did this for a fixed lump sum up to a given number, with about 2s. per head above that number, or a price per head all round, he taking their labour. The lowest figure I have found was that paid at Royston, Herts., in 1781, and at Barkway in 1792, when in each case the contract was for only 1s.

4d. per head! There was not much to be made out of that, and in bad times there was sure to be an application to be released from the contract or for compensation. In fact the parish had more difficulty about that one subject of contracts for "farming" the paupers than any other thing. If they got a good man he soon found that it was not worth his while to stay; if they got one satisfied with the price he did not improve the paupers or give them much for the money. Here is an offer by the Royston Joint Committee in 1784, and a kind of dilemma not uncommon under the old poor-law:--

"Order'd to offer Mr. Kennedy at rate of 2s. a head for fifty persons certain, and if more, to pay at same rate, he to provide three hot meat dinners every week."

Mr. Kennedy, like a sensible man, declined the offer. It was then ordered to advertise for a successor to Mr. Kennedy, but Mr. Kennedy did not feel disposed to be succeeded, and declined to quit the House without notice! A candidate came all the way from Grantham, but on arrival declined, and Mr. Searle, another candidate from Wisbech, accepted it, and something like an Irish eviction scene ensued. Mr.

Kennedy, installed at Whitehall, was obdurate, and with two rival masters even the paupers were in a dilemma and inclined to "take sides." Some evidently stood by the old master, and the Committee gave these notice that "if they did not get out of the place and provide themselves with homes within a month they would be turned out."

Failing to get Mr. Kennedy out of Whitehall, the Committee turned their attention to the Old House on the Warren again, and a deputation waited upon Mr. Kennedy and asked him "if he would be so obliging as to let the parish officers remove the oven, coppers, and the rest of the goods [parish property!] from Whitehall to the Old Workhouse" at or before Lady Day when the lease of Whitehall expired. But Mr. Kennedy was master of the situation and his appointment included the hire of the house, and the dead-lock continued. The parish so far {41} humbled themselves as to offer Mr. Kennedy, if he would leave, to pay him anything he desired for his trouble, and "to provide him with lodging at any Inn in the town he might think proper." Mr. Kennedy was given till "next Sunday" to reply, and he then sent a message, apparently by one of the paupers, obstinately stating that he "had thought of all the inconvenience he could that would attend him in complying with what the gentlemen requested him to do" and that "Mr. Kennedy could think of nothing but his agreement." Another attempt with a substantial bonus was held out, but Mr. Kennedy was not to be conciliated. Two days afterwards another ruse was tried by a notice to Mr. K. that there was a complaint about the clothing of the paupers as being "unfit for publick appearance at Church," and that they "appointed Mr. Bunyan to appraise the clothes and fixtures." The redoubtable Mr. K. was again equal to the occasion, and refused Mr. Bunyan admission! Eventually he vacated the premises upon the time of his appointment expiring, when Mr. Bunyan's valuation went against Mr. K. to the tune of about L50, for the recovery of which Mr. K. was threatened with Mr. Day, the attorney, but somehow covered his retreat and disappears from our view!

As to the treatment of paupers, this was so far considerate that a set of new rules framed in 1785 were actually submitted to the paupers for "hearing their objections to the rules," which were then "settled between the Committee and the paupers"!

Where, in some of the surrounding parishes, the parish officers catered for the paupers in the "House," entries for "bacca" and "snuff" (bought by the parish) are as frequent as tea and sugar in the accounts. In some cases, as in the parish of Barkway, the Workhouse and care of the poor were let to a labouring man. Thus in 1771--

"Thomas Climmons, labourer, agreed to farm the Workhouse and maintain the poor of the parish of Barkway, undertaking to provide good wholesome eatables and drinkables and decent wearing apparel for L143 for one year. All persons paying rates being ent.i.tled to inspect the place. Signed, Thomas Climmons, his mark." Thomas Jordan, blacksmith, signed a similar agreement with "his mark" in 1776, as did William Clearing, labourer, with "his mark" in 1777.

Of the kind of characters the old Workhouse contractors had to deal with, and of the state of things to which the laxity of oversight sometimes reduced the establishment, the following is interesting. It is a minute of the Royston Joint Committee in the year 1794--

"At this meeting Mary May, Eliz. Flindall and Mary Lucas, spinsters, appeared before the Committee and promised to do the work now set them by Mr. Searle, and promised to behave well, and in future not to swear, or sing any improper songs, which if they do, Mr. Searle is desired to have them put in the Cage and kept with Bread and Water {42} until the Visitors or Committee release them, which is not to be done until the paupers are convinced that they are not to be wholly _Mrs. of the Workhouse_"!

The manner of giving out-relief was pretty much of a piece with that in the Workhouse, though had it been administered by efficient and independent officers it would have been both humane and sensible, as based upon the principle of helping those who helped themselves. But, unfortunately, the weaker side of human nature was too strong, and the system pauperised scores of people in order to prevent their becoming paupers, if I may be excused a couple of paradoxes. The object of out-relief seems to have been to help all sorts of people in all sorts of ways to tide over a temporary difficulty, but unfortunately these temporary difficulties multiplied so fast on the hands of the parish Overseer as to become chronic, and that officer became the father of the parish, and the dispenser of all sorts of things from out of the parish cupboard.

The claims upon the Parish Overseer were constant and of the most varied character. Were Joe Thompson's children ailing? Then the Overseer sent in the parish doctor to bleed the poor little mites, though they might ill spare the vital fluid, and the cost of the process to the parish, when a quant.i.ty were operated upon, was 6d.

apiece, as appears by the Therfield parish accounts, though individual cases of "letting blood" were usually charged a s.h.i.+lling each.--Was "Nat Simmons' gal" short of a petticoat? Then, the Overseer provided the needed article.--Had widow Jones broken her spinning wheel or her patten ring? Then the cooper and the blacksmith were called in by the Overseer to repair the mischief.--Was "Old Nib"--they had a curious habit of calling nicknames in the parish books of last century!--was "Old Nib" short of capital for carrying on his business of buying doctors' bottles? If so, a small instalment was forthcoming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Had even the respectable journeyman carpenter cut his finger? Then he too got a grant upon signing a promissory note. In this way the casual disburs.e.m.e.nts of the Overseer amounted to a considerable sum, and covered the greatest variety of claims for help--from paying a person's rent, or taking clothes out of p.a.w.n, to mending leather breeches or supplying cabbage plants for the paupers' gardens!

The comparative isolation of the rural folk was aggravated by the old laws of settlement. To nine men and women out of ten, and to ninety-nine children out of a hundred, the world was bounded almost by the parish, and the parish a man belonged to was an important consideration in those days. Indeed, Sir Mordaunt Martin, a kind of Canon Blackley of the last century, proposed a scheme for fining a farmer a half-penny a day for every man he employed not belonging to {43} the paris.h.!.+ also that all males above 18 in default of paying 2d., and females 3/4d. or 1d. a week for a rainy day, should be committed to prison. Then, a man could not leave his parish and go to live, or even lodge while at work, in another parish without a licence; that is to say a certificate setting forth the parish to which he legally belonged. If he did he was liable to be taken before a magistrate by the Overseers and Churchwardens, and if a man "intruded" (that is the word used in the old informations) in this way into a parish not his own, he was liable to be taken back again, not because he was a pauper, but simply on the ground that he was "likely to become chargeable."

Not half a bad way of keeping out objectionable characters!

Cases are entered in the Royston Parish books of young men working at Cambridge having to come to the parish officers at Royston for their certificates before they could remain and lodge in Cambridge! A common resolution by parish vestries was one directing the Overseers to inquire if there were any persons in the parish not belonging to such parish and without certificates. In many parishes, as at Barkway, old lists are still preserved of persons licensed, so to speak, to come into or go out of the parish to live. In this way the old parish authorities always had a hold upon a man or woman instead of waiting, as in the present day, until it becomes necessary to hunt up their settlement, and with no machinery for getting at them when once they get away. It may seem strange that a Royston man or woman could not cross over the road, say in Melbourn or Baldock Street, and change houses without a parish licence, and yet this was the legal effect of this old restraint.

Here is a specimen of such a removal over the road:--

"These are therefore in His Majesty's name, to require you, the said Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor of the said parish of Royston, in the county of Hertford, to remove and convey the said E---- H---- from out of your said parish of Royston, in the county of Hertford, to the said parish of Royston, in the county of Cambridge, and her deliver to the Churchwardens and Overseers there, &c."

We have seen that the poor of Royston, Herts. and Cambs., were treated as of one parish at the end of last century, but in the beginning of the present century there was a hitch in the arrangement, and the machinery for conveying the paupers "over the road" came into force again, with this difference, that instead of the removal of an individual pauper there was a whole exodus to be provided for, which is thus recorded:--

"Ordered that the paupers in the Workhouse belonging to Royston, Cambridges.h.i.+re, should be taken to-morrow (Nov. 4) to their own parish and presented to the Overseers of the Poor, and if they refuse to receive them to take the sense of the parish upon it on Monday at Church."

{44}

One cannot help lingering in imagination over that comical exodus, with the head man of the parish of Royston, in Hertfords.h.i.+re, leading in procession the whole band of paupers belonging to Royston, Cambridges.h.i.+re, back out of Egypt, or the old Workhouse on the Warren, down the High Street, over the Cross, to be handed over to the head man of Royston, Cambs., to whom they belonged! There was old Widow B---- in pattens and a part of a red cloak; "Old Nib" in his greasy smock-frock, little Gamaliel in mended leather breeches, and he of the one arm who gave no end of trouble by stealing down to the "Red Lion"

to beg of the pa.s.sengers on the coaches--a limping, shambling, half-serious, half-comic, procession, worthy of a Frith! But what were the Cambs. officials to do? They had no promised land, no house in which to accommodate the immigrants! I think it is doubtful whether they accepted them, and whether that momentous event of "taking the sense of the parish" really came off I am unable to say.

The Royston Parochial Parliament had control of the Fire Brigade. The Fire Engine, or rather the engines--for there were two engines in those days as well as now--were kept in the Church-yard, and in 1781 we find this note on record as to their use and management:--

"Ordered that the person who has the care of the Engine be allowed five s.h.i.+llings for himself, if on any alarm of fire he gets the Engine out of the Church-yard in good time, and one s.h.i.+lling each for the a.s.sistants, not exceeding six; and that if he plays the Engine at a Fire he be allowed 10s. 6d. and his a.s.sistants 2s. 6d. each."

They had a blunt but sagacious method of dealing with incompetence as appears by this further order:--

"And in case the Engines, or either of them, shall be unfit for working at any time when called for, that a new person be appointed."

Vagrancy was dealt with by a system of "pa.s.ses," by which they were able to pa.s.s through and obtain lodgings in places in the county, at a county charge, worked through the parish Overseer.

Naturally one of the things that perplexed the minds of parish vestrymen during the last century was not how disease might be prevented, but what were the most favourable circ.u.mstances under which the usual run of accepted diseases could be pa.s.sed through!

Small-pox was considered as one of the fates, and, like cutting your teeth, the sooner over the better! On this principle it was no uncommon thing for persons when advertising for servants, &c., to add this precaution--"One who has had small-pox preferred." Here is a specimen advertis.e.m.e.nt:--

"A lady's Woman, a very creditable person of about 63, and has had Small Pox."

{45}

Among sanitary matters, the propagation of modified small-pox by inoculation was the foremost question in the practical politics of the parish vestry. For this form of small-pox, introduced to forestall the natural visitation of the disease, persons would come distances from the rural districts to the towns--about as the moderns go abroad to take the baths--to pa.s.s through the process, and their presence in the town was sometimes objected to. On one occasion we find the Royston Vestry a.s.sembled for the purpose of "considering the improper way practised by several people (not paris.h.i.+oners of Royston) having their families inoculated for the small-pox, and remaining in the town during their illness, and the impropriety of the surgeons encouraging such proceedings. Agreed that the surgeons be waited upon with a request that they will not in future inoculate any person in their own houses unless such person so inoculated be removed in a proper time."

In 1788 this old question of inoculation brought together the largest attendance at any Vestry in Royston for a century, excepting perhaps that upon Church rates in later years. This Vestry was held in the Parish Church "for the purpose of taking into consideration and finally settling the business respecting the small-pox and the inoculating the poor of the town at the parish expense." Whereupon, says the old record, "The parish divided upon the question and there appeared twenty-five for inoculating the parish at the parish expense, and seventeen against it. It is therefore ordered," &c.

In fifteen years the inoculating majority had disappeared, for in 1803 upon the question of small-pox _versus_ cow-pox, a meeting was held to consider "whether a general inoculation with the _cow-pox_ should immediately take place in this town, which was agreed _nem. con._"

At the end of the century we thus see that the question of a small-pox prophylactic was wavering between the monstrous a.s.sumption that everybody must necessarily have small-pox, and had better set about it, and the milder notion of vaccine as an antidote, if the real thing should come. The old custom of variolation had not been discarded, and the experience of the Gloucesters.h.i.+re milkmaids had not crystalized into the form of vaccination to be handed down by Jenner. At the beginning of the century we find this item:--

"Order'd that there is no necessity for a General Inoculation, there being no small-pox in the town (except in the Pest House), and that the Overseers are hereby order'd to suspend the Business of a General Inoculation _either with the Cow or Small-Pox_."

In general sanitary matters the local Parliament meant very well, but the remedy for a grievance was a long way off. The constable was the Inspector of Nuisances, and he must have sometimes come across heaps of dung in the street. If he did find such a nuisance he had {46} instructions "to make presentment to the Quarter Sessions if need be?"

A very dignified, but still a slow rate of getting the town clean, Mr.

Dogberry!

There was one respect in which the pauper of the last century was made equal with the prince--whatever his vicissitudes in life he was bound to be buried in wool when he died. They might "rattle his bones over the stones," but he was certain to get his pound of wool to be buried in, not as an act of consideration to the pauper, but as an important piece of that extensive legislation for the encouragement of the woollen industry which figures more often in the Statute book of this realm than any other subject. With every funeral was required an affidavit that the deceased when buried was it "not wrapped up in any suit, sheet, or shroud, but what was made of sheep's wool only." A carpenter's bill for a pauper's funeral generally read "for a coffin and a pound of Woole for A.B.," with frequent items for beer, as "for beer for laying out old Grig, and putting him in the coffin," "laying out, one pot of beer," "putting in coffin, one pot of beer," and "carrying to church, two pots of beer," &c., &c.

The casual disburs.e.m.e.nts of a parish afford, both for their subject matter and style, a variety of curious entries.

The years 1769 to 1773 afforded abundant evidence of the terrible prevalence of what are now considered preventible diseases. Over and over again as a reason for temporary relief being granted, the phrase is added "Bad with feaver," or "A Bad Feaver," and many are the entries which refer to Small-pox.

Of relief in kind perhaps the following item is one of the most original in the history of the Poor-law:--

L s. d.

Gave James D---- for an a.s.s . . . . . . . . 0 8 0

to which is added that the Overseer paid to Mr. Beldam this J. D.'s rent.

A system which afforded a man a house rent free and provided him with a donkey for his business was, to say the least, rather different from Guardians in the leading-strings of the Local Government Board!

Nick names in the old parish accounts are abundant and also many Christian names not often used now. Thus:--Peg Woods, Nel J----, Old Nib, Royston Molley, Old Grig, and Hercules Powell. The last named was the Parish Constable in 1780, and he had a name at least calculated to warn off offenders!

One common characteristic of these entries of the Overseers, but more especially in the Parish Constable's accounts, was the extraordinary liberty taken in the spelling of words! In a general way Dogberry, especially, was a spelling reformer, in so far as he went in for a phonetic spelling, but many entries occur in old constable's accounts which are governed by no principle ever yet laid down by scholars, with the {47} result very often that it would be impossible to settle what the word intended could be but for the comparative study of it, as it turns up in a variety of literary dress in different doc.u.ments always with the same context. Here is the result of a little investigation into the handling of one of the commonest of the long words which found their way into the old Parish Constable's bills:--Diblegrates, dibcatkets, dibelgrates, dibhegrats, dipplatakets, dibicits, diblicits, dibblegats, dublicits, duplicates.

It took the Parish Constables of Therfield 37 years to solve the problem of spelling that word of three syllables! and the honour of spelling "duplicates" correctly belongs to one, John Groom, who was Parish Constable for Therfield in 1801.

One of the most frequent items in the Churchwardens' accounts for parishes in this district, during the last half of the eighteenth century, was that of vermin killing, and entries for polecats and hedge-hogs were jumbled up with items for bread and wine for the communion, &c.! Why the farmers should have had such an antipathy to hedge-hogs I am not aware, considering the amount of good the modern naturalist finds them doing. About the middle of the last century any person killing a hedge-hog in Therfield and taking it to the Churchwarden received 4d. for his trouble, and 21 hedge-hogs were paid for in 1788. The price after this went down to 2d. for a hedge-hog and 4d. for a polecat, but at Barkway the price of a hedge-hog was still 4d., while at Nuthampstead the price for sparrows, as appears by "the sparrow bill," was 3d. a dozen.