by Keziah Rodell
Whilst studying A level History, I had the opportunity to complete an Extended Project Qualification. I decided to research the objectives and the implementation of the “Old Poor Law”, the name given to a series of Acts between 1601 and the introduction of the ‘New Poor Law’ in 1834. There was great regional disparity in the implementation of this legislation, so to test the interpretations of historians, I needed to do a detailed study of local practice, which is where my study of the Parish of Dorking comes in.
The lack of documentation meant that it was impossible to write a full chronological history of the Old Poor Law in Dorking, but I was lucky enough to obtain an original document which I used to piece together snapshots of how the Poor Law administration worked in Dorking.
The first snapshot is from 1795, recorded by M Elphick in “Dorking Parish Workhouse. S.W.Wing”, with a plan to extend the parish workhouse. The document states that due to “increasing demands on the parish, it was decided to enlarge the house”.[1] I compared this to a study of the Walton-on-Thames Parish completed by M.G. Eedle in which he uses the Walton-on-Thames Parish select vestry minutes of 1792, which showed decreasing expenses for provisions and the objective of cutting costs. The permanency of a new building showed the parish officials of Dorking were, by contrast, still willing to spend money on provision for the poor in the same period.
In 1799, Dorking Parish Workhouse was leased to John Atlee for one year. The memorandum of agreement provides an insight into the administration and the quality of poor relief that was offered there. The memorandum of agreement is extraordinarily detailed and requires John Atlee to provide many provisions for the poor, for example:
“For every man and boy the said John Atlee must provide immediately on entry, one coat, one waistcoat, one pair of breaches, two shirts, one pair of shoes and one hat. For every women and girl the said John Atlee must provide one gown, two petticoats, two shifts, two stockings, two aprons , two handkerchiefs, two caps, one pair of shoes and one hat and shall also keep and maintain the said poor in decent clothing for the duration of the said term.”[2]
The memorandum of agreement provides evidence of thorough administration and mechanisms for monitoring the upkeep of the terms of the memorandum of agreement by Atlee.
In “Recollections of Old Dorking 1877”, a long-standing resident of Dorking, Charles Rose alludes to several problems outlined by historians, including resentment from the agricultural ratepayers. The account describes the Vestry meetings as having a “stormy nature” due to “contention between the town and the farmers, in all matters in which their interests were not identical”.[3] He claimed that the generosity of the parish had created “a conviction of the right to parish relief” that was “pertinaciously held by the poorer class in general”. The account argues that this sense of entitlement made recipients “clamorous and unreasoning” and even led to what is described as “terrorism” making parish officers “afraid of personal violence on their way home”.[4] This contrasts the evidence of effective administration given by the Atlee memorandum of agreement, suggesting that the administration was chaotic and unable to deal with the increasing numbers of recipients of poor relief in Dorking.
In a log book of Dorking Parish workhouse from 1827 to 1829 there was an average of 240 inmates in the parish workhouse, and from the records of the population in 1801 (which was 3,058) and in 1871 (where it had grown to 5,419), we can estimate that 6-7 percent of the population were in the parish workhouse at this time.[5] Although this does not indicate the numbers of people who received outdoor relief, it suggests that it was certainly not a large proportion of people in need of indoor relief, which surely would have been a popular option for the poor if they indeed received “lavish expenditure” as the Charles account also suggests.
With the evidence of the generosity of Dorking Parish workhouse in mind, the next snapshot is extremely significant. J.S Bright’s account of Dorking published in 1884, there a riot of working men in 1830, announcing itself as part of Captain Swing, the surge of riots in the south. Bright describes the how “the prevalent discontent among the labouring population of this country…was shared by the inhabitants of the villages around Dorking”.
Using these local sources and wider interpretations from historians, my essay explores and draws conclusions to the questions, what were the objectives of the old poor, how in reality they were they implemented and was it really as poorly managed and in need of reform as historians lead us to believe.
[1] Historical notes by M. Elphick “Dorking Parish Workhouse. S.W.Wing” published 1987 pg 1
[2] Memorandum of agreement between John Attlee and the parish wardens and the overseers of the poor’ written in 1799
[3] Charles Rose “Recollections of Old Dorking 1877” Published by `Kohler and Coombes Dorking in 1977 pg 43
[4] Ibit Charles Rose pg 44
[5] “An Account of the receipts and Expenditures of the Poor House of the Parish of Dorking” 1827-1829
