Margate before Sea bathing: 1300 to 1736
Chapter 4: The Poor and the Poor Law in Margate
Until the middle of the sixteenth century relief of the poor was in the hands of the parish minister. He was expected to ‘exhort and stir up the people to be liberal and bountiful’ and ‘exhort the parishioners to a liberal contribution’ for the support of the poor of the parish.1 Although this might have worked when parishes were small, it failed as the numbers of the poor increased. During the reign of Elizabeth I an increase in the population of England from three to four million combined with a series of poor harvests in the 1590s, led to high food prices and large numbers of homeless and unemployed. The fear that this would lead to a breakdown in law and order led to legislation designed to help the poor. An Act passed in 1572 did away with the reliance on voluntary collections for poor relief and replaced it with a poor rate system based on compulsory assessment and collection.2,3 A number of ambiguities in the 1572 Act were resolved in later Acts of 1597 and 1601, finally creating the system of poor relief that remained in force for the next two and a half centuries.4,5
The intention of these Acts, jointly referred to as the Poor Laws, was to provide support for the ‘deserving’ or ‘impotent’ poor, that is, those unable to support themselves, principally the old, the sick, and young children. As described in a guide published for the edification of parish officers ‘the statute of Elizabeth distinguishes the poor into two classes, the able-bodied, or those who are able to work, and the impotent; and it directs the manner in which they are to be provided for, namely by setting the former to work, and by furnishing the latter with necessary relief’.6 The impotent were ‘the aged and decrepit, the fatherless and motherless, the lame, the blind, persons labouring under sickness, idiots, lunatics &c’. The Poor Laws recognized the fact that large numbers of men and women were barely able to scrape a living and certainly had no opportunity to save for their old age. Thomas Ruggles, in his History of the Poor published in 1797 emphasized the importance of the Poor Laws: ‘The occupation of the labourer, as well as the nature of his being, subjects him to acute illness, chronic disorders, and at length to old age, decrepitude and impotence . . . without the aid of his more opulent neighbours, or, what is infinitely to the credit of this nation, without the interference of the godlike laws of his country, this useful class of our countrymen would sink in the arms of famine or despair’.7,8
It was up to individual parishes to determine which of its parishioners were deserving of support and to raise the money required to provide this support. The task was delegated to unpaid officers appointed annually by each parish, known as the Overseers of the Poor; each parish was to have between two and four overseers. The overseers were to collect a local tax called the poor rate to be paid by the inhabitants of a parish and by the occupiers of land in the parish.3,9 The first task of newly appointed overseers was to estimate the poor rate needed to cover the costs for the coming year. They were instructed to obtain ‘the balance of money and . . . other parish property and documents from the late overseers’ and then to ‘minutely examine the state of the parish accounts, ascertain the number of resident paupers in the poor-house, the amount of money paid to out-pensioners, the average disbursements for casualties . . . the arrears of rates due and uncollected, presumed to be good, and generally take an account of the parish fund, so as to enable them to ascertain when and to what amount it will be necessary to levy a rate for the relief of the poor, and for the other purposes to which such rate is applicable’.6 They would then be in a position to decide on the poor rate for the following year. As described in Chapter 3 the poor rate was levied on property within a parish ‘from which a profit is derived’, the rate being based on the rental value of the property. The Overseers appear to have had considerable discretion in deciding who would actually pay the poor rate, and anyone deemed too poor to pay the rate was excused.
Those parishioners paying the poor rate would, of course, expect the overseers to keep the rate as low as possible and cynics suggested that many overseers saw their role as being ‘to maintain their poor as cheap as possibly they can’ and ‘to depopulate the parish in order to lessen the poor rate’.10 Nevertheless, many ratepayers would have been only too aware that they themselves might require relief one day, and this would have ensured a degree of humanity in the system. It is likely though that this humanity would have extended only to the ‘deserving’ poor and not to the ‘undeserving’, able-bodied poor, those judged able to work but reluctant to do so. Support for the deserving poor was provided in a number of ways. As explained in The parochial lawyer, or churchwarden and overseer’s guide and assistant: ‘A principal, if not a primary duty of overseers is to find employment for the poor; and this they are bound to do, not only to ease the burthens of the parish, but for the sake of the poor themselves, to whom no greater kindness can be done than by enabling them to earn their own living by labour, instead of suffering them to eat the bread of idleness, by which their habits and morals must soon be corrupted’.6 This duty was stressed in the guide because ‘according to the poor laws, he who is able to labour is to be maintained by labour only, and nothing is to be provided for him but a means of employment.’ It was suggested that the able-bodied poor could be set to work by providing them, out of the poor rate, with ‘a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, or other necessary ware or stuff’ with which they could make goods that could then be sold. The money raised in this way would be used to pay the poor for their work and, of course, help to keep down the poor rates. It was suggested that the overseers should persuade local tradesmen to buy the goods produced by the poor, on the grounds that it would be good for the parish.3 The overseers could also provide employment ‘for persons capable of manual labour, but out of employ’ by purchasing or hiring land in the parish where they could ‘employ and set to work in the cultivation thereof, on account of the parish, any such persons as by law they are directed to set to work, and may pay to such poor persons so employed as shall not be supported by the parish, reasonable wages for their work’. 6 Alternatively, the overseers could rent out parish land ‘to any poor and industrious inhabitant of the parish’ which they could then cultivate for their own profit. Unfortunately, ‘the inconvenience of setting up trades for the employment of paupers under the superintendence of the overseers’ was such that the regulations were seldom put into practice and, anyway, were later made redundant by the introduction of workhouses.
The overseers were also charged with providing support for ‘the poor by impotency and defect’, that is, those unable to work and unable to support themselves, but only in cases where their relatives could not support them: ‘the father and grandfather, the mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and impotent person, and other person not able to work, being of sufficient ability, shall relieve every such poor person according to such rate as a general quarter session shall assess, upon pain of twenty shillings a month, to be levied by distress, &c’. 6 The impotent who needed support from the parish could be placed in the parish workhouse, if there was one, or be supported ‘by allowing them small pensions weekly or otherwise, or by occasional relief in money, victuals, or clothes,’ payments referred as ‘outdoor relief’. Regular support, a pension, was provided only in the most extreme of cases, mostly to aged widows, and was often handed to the recipients once a week in the church porch after the Sunday morning sermon, ensuring that they would be regular attenders at church.3 The impotent could be supported in their own homes, the parish paying the rent, or the parish could rent or build ‘convenient houses of dwelling for the impotent poor, in fit and convenient places’ and ‘place inmates, or more families than one, in one cottage or house’. 6
Children who could not be supported by their parents could be apprenticed, or ‘bound-out’, to work as servants or apprentices to masters or mistresses willing to maintain and train them, the parish paying the apprenticeship fee. Children were usually bound out at between seven and ten years of age, the apprenticeship continuing until the age of 24 for men or until 21 or on marriage for women.5 Boys could also be sent to sea: ‘parish-officers may, with the consent of two justices . . . bind out any boy, of the age of ten years or upwards, who is chargeable to the parish, or whose parents are so chargeable, or who begs, to the sea service, to any master or owner of a ship or vessel, until he is twenty-one years of age. At the time of the binding they shall pay to the master 50s for clothes and bedding, and they shall send the indentures to the port to which the master belongs, and also convey the apprentice thither’.6
Overseers were expected to make sure that only the poor belonging to their parish received support from the parish. This led to much wrangling between parishes, one parish arguing that a particular pauper was not theirs, but, in fact, belonged to another parish. The Settlement Act of 1662 tried to clarify the position by defining who was legally entitled to claim to be settled in a parish, that is, who was the legal responsibility of that parish.11 The provisions of the Act were slightly modified in 1685 and 1692, and, after these amendments, the principal grounds on which settlement could be claimed in a parish were that you had been born to parents who had settlement in the parish, that you rented property in the parish worth more than £10 per year, or that you paid poor rates on property in the parish worth more than £10 per year; married women took the settlement of their husbands.9,12 The entitlement to settlement for anyone renting property for £10 or more per year would only have been of benefit to the relatively rich since, for example, the average annual rent for a labourer’s cottage in the 1700s was about £1 10s.13 Settlement could also be obtained by serving a full seven-year apprenticeship with a settled resident or by being hired by a settled resident for more than a year and a day, a requirement which, predictably, led to many contracts of just less than a year and a day. Finally, settlement could be claimed by anyone who had lived in a parish for more than 40 days without a complaint having being made against them; a newcomer had to give notice of their arrival in the parish to an overseer and if the overseer thought that the newcomer was likely to become a charge on the poor rate he had 40 days to lodge a complaint with two local Justices of the Peace. These regulations had the unfortunate side effect of reducing mobility and discouraging the unemployed from leaving the parish in which they were born in order to find work elsewhere. The settlement laws continued until 1834 when they were replaced by the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act.14
The Poor in Margate
The parish of St John’s had a few wealthy farmers, merchants, hoymen and maltsters, but the majority of the inhabitants were sailors, fishermen, small farmers and labourers, and their families, and, of course, the destitute. Unhappily, the distinction between the destitute and the labourer was often unclear; many labourers and their families lived at a level barely above subsistence. It has been estimated that at the end of the seventeenth century earnings of about £30 to £40 a year would be required to keep a family, say of a man, his wife, and three children, free from starvation and free from debt.15 Members of the ‘petty bourgeoisie’ would typically have incomes of between £50 and £100 a year and a Gentleman would have required a minimum of about £300 to keep up a reasonable style of living.15 These sums can be compared with the earnings of a typical farm labourer. In 1724 the Quarter Sessions at Maidstone laid down that the rate to be paid for a head ploughman in Kent would be £5 a year, for a ploughman’s mate, £3 a year, and for a boy aged between 14 and 18, £2 a year; a farm labourer hired by the day was to receive 14d a day in summer and 10d a day in winter.16 Labourers in the Isle of Thanet probably received rather more than the average labourer in Kent; John Lewis reported in 1723 that local farmers ‘find it very difficult to get servants [farm labourers] . . . so many of them either going to sea or being employed in the hop-gardens; they give very great wages to their servants and day-labourers’.17 A local guide book of 1763 confirmed that in the Isle of Thanet ‘the wages of labourers and servants are very high’ and that ‘in time of war so many men go into the navy, on the certainty of better pay, or in hopes of prize money, or preferment, that it is no easy matter to procure hands sufficient for carrying on the common business of agriculture, at any price’.18
Even with slightly higher than average wages, it is hard to see how a typical labouring man and his family managed to survive. At best they would have had a tasteless, unsatisfying diet, poor housing with no sanitation, little coal for heating in the winter, and hard, back-breaking work with no prospect of putting money aside for their old age. The brutal truth according to Roy Porter was that ‘everyone below the income commanded by skilled craftsmen was undernourished’; the experience of many, if not most, people at the time was a life of grinding, hopeless poverty, poverty with no relief and no hope of improvement.15 The whole family, including children above the age of about seven, would have been expected to work, and the slightest accident or illness affecting any member of the family could result in destitution, turning the family into paupers dependent on charity or the parish for survival. The result was that most inhabitants of Margate would have depended at some time in their lives on the benevolence of others, sometimes their neighbours and sometimes their ‘betters’. Indeed, many of those of higher rank saw it as their duty to use some of their wealth to relieve distress among their inferiors. In part, this was a matter of religious belief, of following the teaching of Matthew: ‘Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt . . . but lay up for yourself treasures in Heaven.’ But giving to the poor also provided a means of controlling their behaviour; channelling support though the church might encourage the poor to attend church, and giving only to the ‘sober and upright’ might make the poor more abstemious in their ways. It was certainly never the intention of the rich to do away with the poor; both the rich and the poor were thought to have their place in society. William Temple in 1739 thought that ‘the only way to make the poor industrious is to lay them under the necessity of labouring all the time they can spare from rest and sleep, in order to procure the common necessities of life’.19 This was not an uncommon view; in 1771 Arthur Young could write ‘Everyone but an idiot knows that the lower class must be kept poor or they will never be industrious’.20
The intention of the acts of 1572 and 1597, as we have seen, was to move the responsibility for the poor from the individual to the overseers of the poor who were to raise money by a parish poor rate. Of course, some of the wealthier inhabitants of a parish might still have wanted to perform individual acts of charity and, indeed, a few provided bequests for the poor in their wills. For example, George Collmer, after leaving his land to his wife, left 12s each to ‘four seafaring men of St Johns . . . for carrying my body to my grave’ and 5s to the poor of St Peter’s and 4s to the poor of St John’s.21 Similarly, Roger Laming in his will of 1743 ‘gave unto the poor of the parish of St John not receiving alms the sum of £10 to be distributed among them’.22
Unfortunately, heirs were sometimes less enthusiastic about charitable donations than were the deceased, and the records of the Archdeacon’s Visitations to St John’s include several such cases.23 In 1581 a complaint was made about Robert Tittall’s widow who refused to sell a house that her husband’s will had said should be sold for the poor; making matters worse, the house was being lived in by her son and a woman to whom he was not married:
We find the last will and testament of Robert Tuttall partly suppressed, for that where he gave one tenement or house to be sold to the use of the poor of the parish of St John's and St Peter’s, the said tenement is neither sold of his widow, who is yet alive in the parish of St John’s.
We find Mother Tuttall do keep the aforesaid house, given to be sold to the use of the poor of the parish, a house of Bawdry; her son and one Agnes Billing, their living together there, and yet not married.
Sometimes annual bequests of money were ignored. In 1581 the Churchwardens complained ‘We find the poor of our parish deprived of six shillings given unto them, to be paid yearly out of the land and tenement of John Hartye, by the last will and testament of the said John Hartye, withholden by William Matson, now owner of the said tenement and land.’ Similarly, in 1591 ‘the heirs of John Watson’ were reported ‘for withholding 6s 8d the year to be paid out of his land to the poor’. Sometimes the problem was a reluctance to hand over a bequest. In 1596 the Churchwardens complained of ‘John Baldwin of our parish of St John’s, for that the same and report goeth that he keepeth in his hands the sum of £10 given by William Horn, late of the parish of St Peter’s in Thanet, unto the reparation of the Church and poor men’s box of the said parish, which £10 as the speech is hath been paid into the hands of the said Baldwin who refuses to deliver the same, or to yield any security for the payment thereof. It is seven years ago or thereabout since the said legacies were given, and the Church and the poor have wanted the same, having no benefit thereof as we know’. In 1613 the complaint was about John Thurlo ‘for withholding certain legacies or rent from a poor orphan or child dwelling in our parish, named William Adams, for some three or four years past, being 18s 4d yearly, as the same goeth in our parish’. He was called before the Archdeacon’s court and confessed ‘that there is 12s 6d for three years or thereabout in his hand due to the aforesaid William Adams, but saith that the said Adams is dead and departed this life, and no administration thereof as yet taken that he knoweth, so as he knoweth not to whom to pay the same’. In 1620 Alexander Platt, executor of the last will and testament of John Terry ‘late of the parish of St John the Baptist, deceased’ was reported to the Archdeacon ‘for refusing to pay a legacy of three pounds unto the overseers of the poor of the parish of Westgate, given and bequeathed in the last will and testament of the said deceased, as therein and thereby doth manifestly appear. This Platt dwelleth at Ewell in the parish of Faversham or Goodneston as we are informed’.
Wealthier individuals would sometime leave money to establish charities for the poor (Appendix XVII). In 1513 Ethelrede Barrowe ordered her executor, William Curlyng, to maintain a yearly ‘Give-all while the World endureth’, consisting of a gift of ‘a quarter of malt and six bushels of wheat and victuals’ to the poor people of the parish each year on St James’ day; land was bought near Northdown to provide a rental income to fund the gift.24 John Lewis explained that ‘the north chancel of the parish church is dedicated to St James;and as it was then usual, in populous towns, to celebrate the anniversaries of their church’s dedication with an accustomed fair, so even in the most private parishes were these yearly solemnities observed with feasting, and a great concourse of people’.25 He went on to explain that ‘in this parish there used to be kept, what the inhabitants called a Fair,on St John Baptist’s day, the saint to which the church was dedicated; but I suppose, there being no such fair on St James’s day, or no provision made for the celebration of it, this devout woman ordered her executor to provide for an annual feast for ever on that day; which is still observed at a place in this parish called North-downe, and by the country people called North-downe Fair; only instead of a Give-all or a common feast for all goers and comers, the corn and meats are . . . distributed to poor house-keepers.’
A second charitable gift was that of Thomas Taddywho, in 1566, gave £30 to purchase land at Crow hill, to be rented out and the rent ‘yearly for evermore to be distributed, dealt and given unto the most poor and needy of the Parish’. Then in 1594 John Allen, of Drapers, ‘gave for ever to be distributed tothe poorest people of this parish on Shrove-Tuesday, 200 of Winchelseabillets, and two bushels of wheat to be baked into bread’, a Winchelsea billet being a short, thick piece of firewood, traditionally shipped from the port of Winchelsea. The charity was still in operation in 1837 when ‘one gallon of bread’ and half a hundredweight of coals were delivered each Shrove Tuesday to 16 poor people.24 A fourth charitable donation, of unknown date, was made by a Mr Johnson who gave, ‘out of his farm at Garlinge’, the sum of 6s 8d ‘to be paid yearly to the church wardens ofthe parish, of which 6s to be distributed by them in the time of Lent,to the poorest of the parish, and the 8dto be divided betwixt themselves’. Another small charity was established by Henry Sandford in 1626 who ‘gave unto the poor people of this parish every Sunday or Sabbath-day, throughout the year, six penny-worth of good bread, to be distributed by the discretion of the church wardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish, where most need is’; this charity had ceased to operate some time before 1826.24
In 1673 Francis Buller, of Kingston upon Thames, gave to the Parish ‘several tenements, and half an acre of land, lying at Church-hill, the rents of which are to be laid out . . . in binding poor boys apprentices to some sea-faring employment.’ The properties owned by the charity came to include much of Church-square, White’s place and Buller’s yard, also known by the names of Buller’s Court and Parish yard. Buller’s yard was used by the parish to house the poor, and is described in more detail below. The largest and best known of the charitable donations to the parish was, however, that of the Quaker Michael Yoakley who, by his will of 1707, established an Almshouse at Drapers, for nine ‘poor men or women as are natives or inhabitants of the four parishes of St John, St Peter, Birchington, and Acol’, who were to be given ‘warm gowns or coats of shepherd’s gray for outward garments, and firing, and weekly allowance, at the discretion of the trustees.’ Comparing the list of charities given by Lewis in 1736 with that in the report of the Charity Commissioners in 1837 shows that the tradition of establishing charities for the poor ended sometime in the early eighteenth century.17,24,25
Despite the importance of these charities, after the Act of 1597 the primary responsibility for maintaining the poor lay with the overseers of the Poor. Four overseers were appointed each year for the parish of St John’s.26-29 Around Easter time each year the parishioners met in vestry to produce a list of those they wished to see appointed as overseers for the following year. This list was submitted to the Mayor and Jurats at Dover, who were the Justices of the Peace for Margate; it was traditional for the Justices of the Peace to appoint those nominated by the vestry.6 The four new overseers would take up their positions on 25 March or ‘within fourteen days after.’ The overseers had to be ‘substantial householders’ resident in the parish. In the period from 1716-1729 the overseers appointed were, on sixteen occasions, farmers, and on three occasions husbandmen (tenant farmers); on five occasions they were mariners and on five occasions they were maltsters (someone making malt to be used in the production of beer); on two occasions they were butchers, and on one occasion each a hoyman, a coal merchant, a cooper, a carpenter and a tailor. Only three men served twice as overseers in this period, Robert Wells and Cornelius Tomlin, both farmers, and Peter Sackett, a maltster.27,29 The list serves to emphasize the importance of farming, brewing and shipping in the parish before the start of a holiday trade.
Each of the four overseers appointed every year was responsible for one of the four rate collections made in that year, in October, January, May and July. The overseers’ accounts started with a reminder of the purpose of the rate, for example:29
Assessment made 17 Oct 1716 by the Churchwardens, Overseers of the Poor and other parishioners of the parish towards the relief of the poor and for providing a stock to set them to work and for binding out poor children apprentices and assessing a nine pence on every pound rent and the same sum on every £20 stock or ability within the said parish. To be collected by Robert Wells, Cornelius Tomlin, John Bennett and Richard Laming present overseers of the poor of the said parish.
The reference here to ‘rent’ refers to the rent obtainable on a property if it were to be rented out. The quarterly rate of nine pence in the pound raised £59 16s 3d in October 1716, £59 12s 3d in January 1717, £59 16s 10½d in May 1717, and £59 1s 3d in July 1717, totalling £238 6s 7½d for a 12 month period.
Inevitably there were sometimes parishioners unable or unwilling to pay. In the sixteenth century such matters were raised with the Archdeacon during his visits to inspect the church.23 In 1574 James Saull, William Reade and Richard Pym were all reported because they ‘will not pay to the poor man’s box’ and even as late as 1598 eight men, William Fleet, Thomas Wood, William Turner, John Watson, Alexander Violett, John Hudson, Arnold Savage, and Ephraim Watson were reported for refusing ‘to pay to the poor man’s box’. Since the first Poor Law doing away with the reliance on voluntary contributions was introduced in 1574, the references to ‘the poor man’s box’ are rather surprising, this sounding as if the old voluntary system continued. In fact, it is not until 1615 that the first unambiguous reference to a Poor cess (a sess, short for assess, being an obsolete word for a tax) appears in the Visitation reports, in the report of a fine: ‘William Saunders, the head tapster at the "King's Arms," for refusing to pay his cess to the poor, being twelve pence.’ Unfortunately no records have survived from between 1620, when the records of the Archdeacon’s Visitations end, and 1666 when the Accounts of the Overseers begin.
If anyone refused to pay their poor rate, the overseers were expected to obtain a warrant at Dover against the non-payer, allowing them to take away some of their goods and sell them to pay off the debt. Overseers were generally reluctant to take such drastic action against one of their neighbours and debts would build up, to the obvious disadvantage of the other ratepayers. In 1680 the overseers gave 3s 2d to Thomas Markett ‘to go to Dover for a warrant of destresse, and for ye warrant’ and paid someone 1s ‘for writing a letter and a list of those which refused to pay their sesses’.26 In 1681 the Overseers spent 2s 7d ‘at Goodman Seeleys when we sent for a Warrant to destrayne’ and then paid Thomas Pike 4s 6d ‘for a Journey to Dover and 6d for a Warrant’. However, by 1695 the situation had got so bad that the Dover Mayor and Jurats held a special magistrates’ session at Margate, with the outcome being recorded in the Overseers’ Account Book:26
Att a Sessions holden att Margate the 25 June, 1695, before John Hollingbery, Esq, Mayor, and Mr Thomas Scott and Mr Clement Buck, Jurats of the same [of Dover].
Foreasmuch as Complaint is made to this Court by the Chiefe Parishioners of St Johns That former Overseers of the Poore of the said Parish have been very Negligent in the due execution of their Office in not executing Warrants for takeing Distresses upon Defaulters who Neglect and Refuse to Pay their Several Assessments for the Reliefe of the Poore of the said Parrish. For Preventing of this Mischeiffe for the future It is now Ordered that if any Overseer or Overseers for the Poore of the said Parish shall neglect or to refuse to execute any such warrant or warrants. That the Money due Neglected or Refused to be Collected or Leveyed Shall be Answered and paid by Overseer or Overseers to be Leavied upon his or their Goods in case hee or they shall not Answer or pay the same Money Accordingly.
It is not known whether or not this threat to the overseers had the desired effect. What is known is that the costs of supporting the poor continued to rise throughout the country, despite the best efforts of the nation’s overseers, leading to one of the most unpleasant of the Poor Acts, an Act of 1696-7 entitled ‘An Act for supplying some Defects in the Laws for the Relief of the Poor of this Kingdome’.30 The Act ruled that ‘persons receiving alms, their wives, children &c’ should wear a badge, a large letter P, on the shoulder of their right sleeve, the only exception being for children living at home ‘in order to have the care of and attend an impotent and helplesse Parent’. Any poor person not obeying the rule could be committed to gaol and there ‘whipt and kept to hard Labour’, and any Overseer of the Poor giving relief to a poor person not wearing a badge could be fined 20s, half the money going to the person who reported the offence. It is worth quoting this section of the Act in full:
And to the end that the Money raised onely for the Relief of such as are as well impotent as poor may not be misapplied & consumed by the idle sturdy and disorderly Beggars Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That every such Person as from and after the First Day of September One thousand six hundred ninety seven shall be upon the Collection and receive Relief of any Parish or Place and the Wife and Children of any such Person cohabiting in the same House (such Child onely excepted as shall be by the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor permitted to live att home in order to have the care of and attend an impotent and helplesse Parent) shall upon the Shoulder of the right Sleeve of the uppermost Garment of every such Person in an open and visible manner weare such Badge or Mark as is herein after mentioned and expressed that is to say a large Roman P, together with the first Letter of the Name of the Parish or Place whereof such poor Person is an Inhabitant cutt either in red or blew Cloth as by the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor it shall be directed and appointed And if any such poor Person shall att any time neglect or refuse to weare such Badge or Mark as aforesaid and in manner as aforesaid itt shall and may be lawfull for any Justice of the Peace of the County City Liberty or Towne Corporate where any such Offence shall be co[m]mitted upon complaint to him for that purpose to be made to punish every such Offender for every such Offence either by ordering of his or her Relief or usuall Allowance on the Collection to be abridged suspended or withdrawne or otherwise by co[m]mitting of any such Offender to the House of Correction there to be whipt and kept to hard Labour for any Number of Days not exceeding One and twenty as to the said Justice in his discretion it shall seem most meet and if any such Churchwarden or Overseer of the Poor from and after the said First Day of September shall relieve any such poor Person not haveing and wearing such Badge or Mark as aforesaid being thereof convicted upon the Oath of One or more credible Witnesse or Witnesses before any Justice of the Peace of the County City Liberty or Towne Corporate where any such Offence shall be co[m]mitted shall forfeit for every such Offence the Su[m]m of Twenty shillings to be levied by Distresse and Sale of the Goods of every such Offender by Warrant under the Hand and Seale of any such Justice one Moiety thereof to be to the use of the Informer and the other to the Poor of the Parish where the Offence shall be co[m]mitted.
The Act was not repealed until 1810.31 In 1699 the Overseers of the Poor at Margate spent 6s ‘for making the Badges for the poor’.26
Some idea of how the overseers spent the poor rate can be garnered from the rate books, which survive from 1678.26-29 One thing that becomes clear is the importance of regular weekly disbursements or pensions, amounting to about half of the total expenditure on the poor. For example, in the first quarter of the financial year starting Easter 1679 the overseers supported 17 people with weekly disbursements of 1s 6d, 2s 6d or 3s a week, costing a total of £21 6s for the quarter.28 This can be compared to the ‘extra disbursements’ over the same period, amounting to £17 3s 1d, including payment of 6 people’s rent at a total cost of £6 12s, a payment of 1s to Good Knock ‘for looking to Widow Ashendon in sickness’, and a payment of 7s 6d to Good Raff ‘for keeping of Marlow’s child’. (Goodwife, usually abbreviated as Goody or Good, was a polite form of address for women, used much as ‘Mrs’, ‘Miss’, or ‘Ms’ are used today; the equivalent for a man was Goodman.) By 1716 the numbers supported by a pension had doubled to 36 in the first quarter of the year, again mostly given to widows, at a cost that had also doubled to £44 18s. These pensions included 1s 6d a week to Widow Tomson who was still receiving a pension in 1718 although by then it had increased to 2s a week, 2s a week to Widow Horton and 2s 6d a week to Elizabeth Roberts; Stephen Pett received a pension of 2s 6d a week. Comparing these names with those in the parish burial registers suggests that Widow Tomson was Ann Tomson who died in June 1718, that Widow Horton was Mary Horton who died in the winter of 1716/17, that Elizabeth Roberts was a ‘maiden’ who died in 1718, and that Stephen Pett was ‘an antient man’ who died in the winter of 1717/18. These examples show that pensions were paid mostly to the single elderly at the ends of their life; a pension comparable to the wage of a farm labourer seems not ungenerous although, of course, it should be remembered that a farm labourer’s wage was only enough to support a pretty miserable existence. The numbers receiving these pensions were rather small. The 17 pensioners in 1679 represents about 1 per cent of the population of the parish and the 36 pensioners in 1716 represents about 1.5 per cent of the population. This is relatively low on a national scale,3 suggesting either that the overseers were unusually stingy, which seems unlikely given the level of the individual pensions, or that there was relatively little destitution in the parish.
One of the most important of the overseers’ responsibilities was to ensure that the poor had somewhere to live. Sometimes they would pay the rent for a poor parishioner, allowing them to continue to live in their own homes; once the rent was paid even the elderly might be able to support themselves through casual labour.3 For example, in 1728 the overseers paid £1 10s for Widd Blackbourne’s rent and £1 6s for that of Widd Laming, and in 1731 they paid 10s ‘towards’ the rent of Widd Hatcher. They would also pay for repairs to a house so that the old could continue to live there; in 1679 they paid Robert Pierce 6d ‘for thatching Widd Overys house’ and in 1683 they paid Stephen Goldfinch, a bricklayer, 2s ‘for cleansing of Goodman Knocks Well’.26 Frequently the overseers would rent rooms for the poor in the houses of other poor people, especially for elderly paupers who could then care for one another; in 1666 Widow Petkin was paid 5s for a year’s rent for Richard Harlow, in 1716 Widow Norwood was paid 5s for half a year’s rent for Sarah Stevens and Vincent Knot was paid £2 10s for one year’s rent for Widow Browne.26,27 Payments of this kind are, however, relatively rare in the overseers’ accounts, and it is likely that many of the parish poor were housed in properties given to the parish as charitable bequests, or in properties rented or built by the overseers. It is clear that the parish had a number of properties of this type, but the overseers’ accounts provide frustratingly little detail, and what detail there is is often confusing. In the accounts the properties are referred to as poores-houses, almes-houses, the parish-house, the Pish houses, and Charity-houses, sometimes in the singular but more often in the plural.26-29 In 1680 the overseers spent 1s on ‘the poor’s houses’ and £3 16s ‘for work about the parish house.’ In 1681 they spent £7 2s 6d ‘for work done to the Charity houses’, 1s 10d ‘for work done about the Almshouses’ and £1 5s 1d ‘for work done about the poor’s houses’; in 1679 there is reference to the ‘Frogg house’ and the first reference to the ‘Workhouse’ occurs in 1727. It is hard to say whether these different names correspond to different buildings or whether some are simply different names for the same building.
We can be fairly certain about one of the houses, the Frog house. Lewis, in his History of the Isle of Thanet published in 1736, listed the parish’s charitable benefactions (Appendix XVII).25 These include ‘two small cottages’ belonging to the parish ‘at a place called Frog-Hill’. They were built in about 1648 by Christopher Frenchbourn, who ‘growing necessitous’ sold them in 1662 ‘to the Church-Wardens &c for the consideration of two shillings a week to be paid to him and his wife, so long as they should live together, and of one shilling a week to the survivor of them’.25 Frog Cottage is named on Edmunds 1821 map of Margate, at the bottom of Frog Hill, now called Grosvenor Gardens; presumably by 1821 the two original cottages had been combined into one. In 1679 the Overseers paid 6d ‘for mending Frog well’, and in 1690 John Baker was paid 6d ‘for a Bucket for Frogg house’. Frog house had a thatched roof; in 1702 Matthew Constable was paid 4s for thatching the house; in 1706 3s was spent by the Overseers ‘for thatching and materials about Frogg house’, in 1712 Nicholas Norwood was paid 2s 8d ‘for thatching Frogg house’ and in 1734 William Castle was paid 15s for ‘thatching at Frogg house, and for rods and spindles, and 3 days lowances’, the spindles being used to anchor the rods spread across the thatch to hold it down. The Frog house had proper windows; in 1706 John Ovenden was paid 3s 6d ‘at Frogg House for Glaseing’.
A second charitable donation that ended up providing housing for the poor was Buller’s charity, already described.17,24 In 1673Francis Buller gave to the parish ‘several tenements, and half an acre of land, lying at Church-hill’, the rents from which were to be used ‘in binding poor boys apprentices to some sea-faring employment’. The ‘several tenements’ forming what became known as Buller’s square or the Parish Yard were passed to the parish officers of St John’s in 1775 who then paid rent to the trustees for the properties, and used them to house paupers. The first specific reference to the Parish yard in the overseers’ accounts is in 1735 where there is a record of a payment of £10 ‘to Mr Robert Brook in full for rent of the houses in the Parish yard, a gift of Mr Buller, which the Parish hires of the Trustees’; Robert Brook was a mariner and trustee of Buller’s charity.26,27 The way in which the Parish Yard houses were run is made clear in the report of a meeting of members of the Margate Philanthropic Institution in 1847 where they discussed the possibility of building alms houses without any endowments, which would allow ‘aged and deserving persons a free occupancy’. It was pointed out that with ‘the allowance usually given to aged persons by the parish, and the assistance their children or friends might be able to afford them, it was expected they would be able to live, as many persons now do in the parish yard, who enjoy the advantage of having to pay no rent for their room’.50 The situation was unchanged in 1882: ‘the houses . . . in the Parish yard . . .were very nice . . . but were without endowment, and those poor women, although they were very glad to get into those houses, had to depend upon 1s 6d per week allowed them by the parish’.32
Figure 26. A map based on that by John Pridden showing the location of the Poor’s House in Margate, 1781. From John Pridden, ‘Collection for the History of the Isle of Thanet’.
Figure 27. A west view of the Poor’s House at Margate, October 14th, 1781. From John Pridden, ‘Collection for the History of the Isle of Thanet’.
Figure 28. Detail from John Harris’s 1717 map of Thanet, showing an unlabelled building, possibly the Poor’s house.
Joseph Hall’s Map of Margate published in 1777 shows a ‘Poor house’ located to the east of the parish church, on a road corresponding to the road known later as Prospect Place and then Victoria Road.33 A hand drawn sketch map by John Pridden dating to ca 1781 also shows the ‘Poor’s house’ and its garden on Prospect Place (Figure 26),34 and Pridden provides a drawing of the Poor’s House, showing it to be a fairly large, two storey building (Figure 27). Edmund’s Margate map of 1821 shows the Margate Workhouse on Prospect Place, and William Rowe records that Margate Workhouse was built in 1769,35 so that John Pridden’s ‘Poor’s house’ was, in fact, the Workhouse by another name. Intriguingly, John Harris’s map of Thanet published in 1717 shows an unlabelled building to the right of the parish church (Figure 28), a building of sufficient importance in the parish to warrant inclusion on the map. We do not know what this building was, nor its exact location, but one possibility, given its position on Harris’s map, is that it was an early Poor’s House, either built close to the church, for example on land belonging to Buller’s Charity, or on the site where the Workhouse was built in 1769; another possibility is that it is the Parsonage.
The first mention of a poorhouse in Margate is probably that in the accounts of the Pier Wardens which, in 1679, record the receipt of 3s for ‘rent of the house and poorhouse’; no similar receipts are recorded in later years.36 The first surviving volume of accounts for the Overseers of the Poor starts in 1678 and, although there is a reference to 6d being paid ‘for mending Frog well’ in 1679, the first reference to the ‘Poores-houses’ does not appear until 1680 when 1s was spent ‘at Mr Bushells at sealing the Leases for the Poores-houses’ and 17s 2d was paid to ‘Mr Denn for writings about the Almshouses’. These large expenditures suggest that something major was being done to house the poor in 1680. In 1681 the Overseers paid Thomas Underdown £6 for the rent of the ‘Poores houses’, then in 1682, paid £6 ‘to the Trustees for the Charity houses for rent due at Lady day’, and in 1683 paid £6 ‘to the Feoffees [trustees] one years rent for the Almshouses’ followed later in 1683 with £3 to ‘Thomas Underdown for half a yeares rent for the Almshouses’; in 1688 the Overseers paid £6 to ‘Thomas Underdown, one of the Trustees of the Charity-houses for one years rent due at our Lady day last’.26 These identical rents suggest that the ‘Poores houses’, ‘Charity houses’ and ‘Almshouses’ were all the same, and were rented out to the Overseers to house the poor by a charity of which Thomas Underdown was one of the trustees. Thomas Underdown was one of an important Margate family, at one time owner of Dane Court.37 Thomas Underdown himself was a maltster, and, at various times, Churchwarden, Overseer, and Pier warden;26,38 the most likely of the local charities to own property like this was Buller’s Charity. This would be consistent with an entry in the overseers’ accounts for 1737 recording a payment of £6 ‘to Mr Grainger at taking Edward Whitehead Apprentice to the sea, being the Gift of Mr Bullard [Buller] of the Poor-houses’.27
It is less clear whether or not the ‘Pish-houses’ (Pish being a common abbreviation for Parish) referred to in the overseers’ accounts was yet another name for the Poore’s House, or was a separate set of buildings. There is no reference to a rent being paid to Thomas Underdown for the Pish-houses , although in 1712 it was recorded that the overseers paid £10 ‘to the Feoffees rent of the Pish houses’. In 1680 John Turner was paid £3 16s ‘for worke and boards about the Pish-house’ and in 1682 the overseers paid £4 2s 6d to Dudley Diggs for ‘Tyles for the Pish-houses’.
Until about 1727 most references in the overseers’ accounts to the Poor’s houses are in the plural, but after that date most are in the singular.27 Assuming that the ‘Poores houses’, ‘Charity houses’ and ‘Almshouses’ do all indeed refer to houses in Buller’s yard, it seems that a new, specially built, Poor-house could have been built at about this time. In 1733 the overseers accounts record a payment of 3s 6d ‘to Goodman Coultroup for work at the Poor-house and Alms-houses’ and, also in 1733, a payment of 8s 1d to ‘Mr [Joseph] Sandwell per bill for the Poor house and Almshouses’, both consistent with the Poor House being an entity separate from the Almshouses. The accounts for 1728 record a payment of £3 ‘to Mr Petken for half a years rent for the [Poor] house’ and in 1731 a further payment of £6 to ‘Petken for one years rent of the Poor house’. An Indenture of 1738 between George Upton of Canterbury and William Petken, the Margate brewer, refers to ‘all that messuage or tenement with appurtenances, commonly called or known by the name of the poor house’ and an Indenture of 1743 between William Petken and Michael Wilkins Conway of Buckingham refers to the messuage ‘commonly known by the name of the Poorhouse with the yard, backside garden and appurtenances . . . which was lately lent to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor . . . for the use of the poor . . . at yearly rent of £6’.39,40 It is not known where this Parish House was.
The dread word ‘Workhouse’ appears in the accounts for the first time in 1727:
To money spent at Parish meetings and business concerning the Workhouse — 12s
To money spent at taking an account of the poor’s goods — 4s 1d
To part changing the lease of the Workhouse — 2s 6d
These entries are anything but clear. Knatchbull’s Act, An Act for amending the laws relating to the settlement, imployment, and relief of the poor had been passed in 1723, with its ‘workhouse test’ by which a pauper would only be granted poor relief if they were admitted to a workhouse.41 The act was adopted by many parishes and it has been estimated that by 1732 there were more than 700 workhouses in the country.12 The aim of the act was to distinguish between the deserving poor, who would be housed in a Poorhouse, and the undeserving poor, that is, those able to work, who would be housed in a Workhouse. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if Margate had a ‘proper’ Workhouse until a very much later date. In 1777 the Government carried out a survey of the nation’s Workhouses and recorded over 1,800, including Workhouses in Birchington and Ramsgate, but the report contains no return for a Workhouse in Margate.42
Putting all this information together it seems likely that from 1727 the overseers started to run a new Poorhouse at Margate on more authoritarian lines, but, not wanting to incur the cost of renting any new buildings, made the Poorhouse serve for both the deserving and the undeserving poor. Several items of expenditure listed in the overseers’ accounts for 1727 suggest that accommodation for the poor was extended at this time. In 1727 Edward Constant and Gabriel Wilds were paid between them £1 19s 6d ‘for a rug and bed’ and ‘for bed and blanket as per bill’, 15s 9d was spent on ‘three blankets, rug and coverlid [coverlet] for the poor’ and James Stone was paid 4s 6d ‘for bed cords’. Also in 1727 Richard Solley, a carpenter, was paid £5 13s 2d ‘as per bill’ and although no details are given, it is possible that this also corresponded to furniture or work done at the Poorhouse. An entry in the Parish Register for 1728 makes clear the fear engendered by the idea of a workhouse:43
On Sunday August 25 1728 hang’d himself John WOOD aged 95, born at Graveney near Faversham out of a dread of his coming to be kept by the parish and put into the workhouse. He had been for some time stark blind, and took the opportunity of his wife being absent at Church, who when she came home found him dead hanging upon his knees
The first master of the Poor house was Robert Peirse who was paid 4s in 1728 as ‘his half years salary for the Poor House’.27 In 1733 John Overy was appointed master at the slightly less miserly salary of £2 a year; during the year John Overy was reimbursed 11s 8d for ‘small trifles he disburst’ in the poorhouse and for what he had spent ‘for necessaries at the Poor house’. The low salary and the fact that he was referred to as ‘Goodman Overy’ in the overseers’ accounts, rather than as ‘Mr Overy’, suggests that the post of master was not held in high regard. In 1736 Robert Peerse [or Peirse] is back as master of the Poorhouse, possibly with a slightly better salary as the overseers’ accounts record: ‘To Rob. Peerse for ¼ years salary and other necessaries for the Poor-house - 13s 6d’.
It is after 1727 that relatively large bills for provisions start to appear in the accounts, presumably for the poor at the Poorhouse, starting with a payment of 16s 9d to Henry Petken ‘for beer for the poor at the house.’ In 1728 John Pummitt, a small farmer, was paid 9s 7d ‘for two bushels and a gallon of white peas’, William Small was paid £4 11s 9d for ‘meal, bread, and flour’, William Jarvis, a maltster, was paid £2 12s 6d for ‘14 bushels of malt for poor house’, Matthias Smith, a butcher, was paid £4 6s 5d ‘for beef for the poor’, and Daniel Pamflett, a hoyman, was paid 18s 9d ‘for cheese from London for the poor’. Payment was also made for coal, £4 4s being paid to Peter Wootton, a coal merchant, ‘for coals for the poor’ with 12s being paid to John Brown, a small farmer at North Foreland, ‘for carriage of 8 chaldrons of coals’, presumably from the harbour to the Poorhouse; farmers, having horses and carts, were often paid for carting goods around the parish. Also in 1728 the overseers gave 4s 4d ‘to the poor people in the house to keep Christmas’. Many more payments for food are included in subsequent years, including payments for pork, beef, mutton, ‘neats [cattle] feet and tripes’, salt-pork, herrings, salt-fish, peas, French beans, apples, fat, malt, yeast, milk, bread, lots of cheese, and ‘wine for the poor in time of sickness’. There are also frequent purchases of ‘shop goods’, including butter, candles, soap, sugar, raisins, linen, worsted [a variety of woollen yard or thread], linsey [a coarse and stout material of which the warp is linen and the woof woollen], dowlas [a strong and coarse linen cloth], bodices, cotton, thread and tape; in 1731 the overseer’s spent 9d on ‘cabbage plants for the Poor House’ and gave 3d ‘to Widd Mainer for herbs to sett at the Poor House Garden’.
In 1731 the overseers started to pay for schooling for children at the Poorhouse, initially for one boy for whom they paid John Prince 3s 11d for schooling over the course of the year and for whom they bought a primer for 1s 3d. The accounts for 1731 also include payments for ‘schooling at the Poor House’ and for ‘schooling for the boy in the Work-house’, the use of both ‘Poor House’ and ‘Work-house’ again suggesting that these were the same building. In 1732 the overseers gave John Prince 2s, he now being ‘in need’; employing him as a school teacher was a way of providing a poor man with necessary financial support. Later in 1732 the overseers paid Widd Norwood 7s 8d for ‘Francis Baker’s schooling’ and Widd Powell 6s 4d ‘for schooling for the poor children’. In 1733 a payment of 6s 3d was made ‘to Widow Powell and Widow Norwood for schooling for poor children’. The next payment of this type was for 1s 6d paid ‘to Wid Sampson for 6 weeks schooling for 3 poor children out of the Poor-house at 3d per week’.
The original Poor Laws emphasised that as well as accommodation, the overseers were expected to provide work for the able-bodied poor by providing them with ‘a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, or other necessary ware or stuff’.6 There is little evidence in the overseers’ accounts that this idea was pursued at all vigorously in Margate. In 1666 the overseers gave Widow Bell 9d ‘to buy yarne for the Girle she keeps’ and in 1688 the overseers paid Richard Laming 8s 8d ‘for Weaving and for Worke’ and 1s 1d ‘for making the sacks’ and spent 8d for ‘½lb and 2 oz of Twine to sowe the Sacks’.26 In 1700 Widow Hall was given 2s for ‘spinning one dozen of hemp’ and Francis Sanderoff was similarly paid 2s ‘for one dozen spinning’ but there are very few entries of this type. This reflects the pattern nationally, with unpaid overseers being unwilling to spend the time required to supervise the work of large numbers of poor scattered throughout a parish.3 Indeed, one of the arguments for the introduction of workhouses was that it would enable the work of the poor to be supervised much more effectively. The overseers’ accounts are consistent with the idea that the St John’s Poorhouse became more like a Workhouse after about 1727. In 1730 the overseers recorded receiving 7s for ‘1 dozen of work done at the Poor house’, 3s ‘for spinning 6 lb of work’, and 1s 6d from Thomas Cramp, a shoemaker, ‘for work’, presumably for shoes made at the Poor house. In 1732 1s was paid to ‘the Poor for spinning’ and in 1733 2s 8d was paid ‘for 1lb of the best wool to spin in the Poor-house’ and 10d was paid to ‘the poor in the house for encouragement for spinning’. In 1733 the poor in the Poorhouse were given 1s, calculated on the basis of the value of the work they had produced, at a rate of 2d in the shilling, and the overseers invested 6d in the purchase of ‘thread, tape and needles’ and 1s for ½ a pound of wool for the Poorhouse. The overseers also occasionally gave money to individual men and women to enable them to continue with their trades. In 1679 the overseers paid 1s ‘for mending Goodwife Ashendens [spinning] Wheele and for making Richard Knock a Rake’.26 In 1701 the overseers paid 16s ‘for plowing three Acres of ground for Widd Poynter’. In 1730 John Ryes, a poor fisherman, was given 1s to buy a ‘whiting line’ and ‘Goodman Shoemaker’s wife’ was given 2s 6d in 1738 for a spinning wheel. In 1700 Robert Peirce was given £1 ‘for or towards byeing him a Boate’ and in 1719 James Mount was given 12s ‘to mend his boat’, although in this case it was noted that the payment was made ‘by consent of the parish’.26,27
More often the poor were supported through payments for small jobs done about the parish; for men this often took the form of work on the parish houses. For example in 1716 Nicholas Norwood, a thatcher, was paid £1 6s ‘for work about the parish houses’, although the following year it was necessary for the overseers to give his wife 2s. Women were also employed by the overseers, but largely in caring tasks such as nursing the sick and ‘laying out’ or washing the dead. In 1666 Widow Bing was paid 1s 6d ‘for watching and tending the Wid Witherden’, Widow Poole was paid 6s ‘for looking to Susan Rendall and her child in her sickness of the Small pox, for one week’, and Widow Prickett was paid 1s ‘for Entertayning of Susan Rendall and her child in her home for one weeke.’ In 1679 Good Knock was paid 1s ‘for looking to Widd Ashendon in sickness’. In 1727 the wife of Mathias Mummery, a shoemaker, was paid 3s 6d for ‘nursing several people’, Widd Everitt was paid 1s for ‘washing for sick people’, and the wives of Robert Peirse and Richard Blackbourne were paid 1s 4d and 2s 8d respectively for nursing Mrs Hart. Men were paid to help with male paupers; in 1738 Goodman Housden was paid 4s for washing Gabriel Foard, who presumably was lousy at the time. Payments were also made for looking after children. In 1679 Good Raff was paid 7s 6d ‘for keeping of Marlow’s child’ and in 1716 John Salter was paid 12s 6d for keeping ‘a parish girl’ for one quarter. In 1735 Goodman Kiddal was paid 13s 6d for ‘11 weeks nursing, at 12d per week, Webbster’s bastard child, and other necessaries’ and in 1737 John Neal, a weaver, received 12s ‘for providing clothing and board for Hedgecock’s child’.
Small sums of money could also be earned helping to keep down vermin. In response to a series of bad harvests in the sixteenth century Parliament passed two acts aimed to reduce the numbers of vermin eating seeds and crops, an Act to destroy ‘choughs, crows and rooks’ passed in 1532 and an Act ‘for the preservation of grain’ passed in 1566.44,45 Under these Acts churchwardens had to pay a bounty for vermin killed within the parish, the money coming from the church rate; the vermin covered by the acts included sparrows, rooks, magpies, foxes, weasels, and hedgehogs, hedgehogs at the time being believed to suck milk from the teats of cows at night as they lay in the fields. In 1706 the Churchwardens of St John’s paid Thomas Bing 5d for 3½ dozen sparrow’s heads, Edward Flagg 1s for three hedgehog heads and Matthew Constable 4d for one hedgehog.46 Most payments seem to have gone to young boys: in 1705 ‘Dawson’s boy’ received 1d for six sparrows heads, ‘Edward Bing’s boy’ received 3d for 1½ dozen of sparrows heads, ‘Mr Tomlins boy’ received 1s 8d for 5 hedgehogs and ‘John Parnell’s boy’ received 4d for 1 hedgehog. However, some adults also received payments; in 1713 ‘Mr Cowells Servant’ received 11d ‘for 5½ dozen of heads’, a ‘Mr Grant’ received 3d ‘for 1½ dozen of heads’ and Capt. Omer’s shepherd received 4d for a hedgehog and ‘Roger Tombe the Shepard’ also received 4d for a hedgehog, this probably being Capt. Omer’s shepherd again. Payments for heads of rooks, sparrows and hedgehogs continued at least until 1715, in which year £1 9s was paid ‘for various sparrow heads and other vermin for whole year’.
Many of the poor, rather than long term help, needed help for just a short period of time, due to illness, lack of work, or some other disaster. Such help was provided either in the form of cash payments or as relief in kind, which could include clothes, shoes, fuel, rent, food or medical care. Examples of cash payments include ‘a poor woman in want with two children having lost all they had by fire’ who was given 2s in 1679, the 1s given in 1712 ‘to a poor man that had a great Loss’, and the 1s given in 1680 to George Brown ‘being a poor man’; the overseers then ensured that George Brown needed no further help from the parish by paying 1s 6d to move him to Canterbury. In 1685 about 60 people received cash relief in the parish, sums varying from 6d to 2s 6d, at a total cost of £14. In 1689 Widow Williams was given 2d ‘for a Chamber pott’. In 1716 Widow Jarman received 1s ‘in sickness’ and Widows Wellen and Grainger each received 2s, also ‘in sickness’; Thomas Hewes and Widow Horton received 1s and 2s respectively ‘in want’ and Widow May received 3s ‘in need at several times.’ In 1717, Thomas Whithead, a labourer, received 5s ‘at five several times in need’ and Vincent Watson received 2s 6d ‘in his need’. Small one-off payments were also made by the Churchwardens: in 1693, 6d was given ‘to a poor man for relief’ and, on several occasions, poor men and women received sums of 6d or 1s.26,46 Money was also given by the churchwardens to men passing through the town, possibly to encourage them not to stay; in 1693 1s was given ‘to a poor traveller’, 2s was given ‘to two soldiers from Deal’ and 1s was given ‘to a soldier come from Sandwich’.46 Payments to soldiers and sailors passing though the parish in times of war could be quite large (Chapter 6).
Occasional support was more commonly provided in kind than in cash; payment in kind helped, of course to bolster the local economy, as the overseers bought goods and services from the local shopkeepers and tradesmen. The wide range of goods and services provided suggests that the overseers had a good knowledge of the needs of the poor in the parish. Considerable amounts were spent on replacing and repairing shoes and clothing; large numbers of badly clothed paupers would have been a very public sign of poverty in the parish, suggesting that the parish did not care for its poor.9 Sometimes individual items of clothing were identified in the accounts and sometimes payments were made to cover quarterly bills submitted by tradesmen. In 1666 Matthew Toarth was paid 2s 6d for three pairs of shoes and 2s 6d ‘for one paire [of shoes] for the Girle that Widd Bell keeps, and one paire for the boy that Peter Mosse keeps’ and Thomas Emptage was paid 6s ‘for shooes for Tho. Tadds Girle, and Jeremy Culmers Girle, and for mending shoes’. Also in 1666 John Laming was paid 8s ‘towards cloathes for the boy he keeps’, Stephen Cock was paid 2s ‘for making a Wastcoate for ye Girle at Adrian Moyses and for Claspes etc.’ and 1s ‘for making a Wastcoate and pair of breaches for Thomas Tadd’.26 In 1707 there was a particularly large expenditure on clothes:
For a Shift and Westcoate for Mary Anderson — 6s 8d
For a Shift for Mary Phillips — 2s 10d
For 2 Shirts for George Grant — 6s
For 2 Shirts for Edw. Norwood — 6s 6d
For a payer of Briches for old Norwood — 6s 6d
For a Shift, Apron, Bodys, and other things for Mary Askew — 8s 10d
For a Gowne and Coate for her, and another shift — 15s 4d
For a Gowne for Widd Anderson — 11s 6d
For a shift for Widd Smith — 2s 10d
For a shift for Widd Russell — 3s
For a Wastcoate for Widd Horton — 2s 6d
For a payer of Leatheren Briches for Edw. Peach — 3s 6d
For a Wastcoate, 2 Handchiefts, tape, a shirt, and a sock [= a shroud] — 9s 11d
For 2 Handkerchiffs for Jarmans Girle — 8d
For a shift for Widd Smith — 2s 10d
For a Blew Apron for Mary Phillips — 1s 3d
For a payer of Spactacles and a Case for her — 6d
For a shroud for Widd Smith — 3s 6d
For a Rugg for Geo. Grant — 5s 6d
For a Blew Shirt for old Norwood — 3s 6d
In 1717 Robert Gore was paid for 7s 11d for shoes and Franklin Goldsmith, a tailor and draper, was paid 4s 4d for a ‘waistcoat and britches for [the] Wallace boy’. In 1718 Widow Castle was given 1s to allow her to buy ‘two capps.’ In 1727 three shirts were bought for Thornden’s ‘young child’ for 1s 6d and Richard Dixon’s wife was paid 1s 3d for making gowns for Thorden’s ‘girls’, and two pairs of leather britches were bought ‘for poor boys’ for 6s. In 1728 John Brooman was paid 12s 8d ‘for a gown and a pair of bodies [stays]’ and Matthias Mummery was paid 8d for mending a pair of shoes. In 1735 3s was paid ‘to the Wid Emtage a shift in need’. In 1735 many of the poor received clothing; Thomas Smith’s daughter received a shift costing 1s 6d and two caps costing 1s 1d, John Sanders received a shirt costing 3s 2d, his wife a shift costing 3s, an apron costing 1s 10d, and 5d ‘for thread and tape’, and his daughter a shift costing 1s 6d, a coat costing 1s 10½d, ‘coverings for her stays’ costing 1s 5d, and a frock costing 2s 11d, and Franklin Goldsmith was paid 1s 9d for a pair of stays for the daughter of Elizabeth How. In 1728 the overseers spent 6s 6d ‘to redeem Widd Reynolds clothes’ from a pawnbroker.
The overseers had accounts with a number of the shopkeepers in the town. In 1717 the overseers paid John Brooman, a draper, £3 8s 9d ‘as per bill’. Similarly, in 1728, the overseers paid a bill for £1 17s 7d from Solomon Holbourn, a tailor and draper, and also bills for 19s from Thomas Cramp, and for 10s 8½d from Robert Gore, both ‘for shoes for the poor’. In 1729 William Cobb, a shoemaker, shop keeper, maltster and father of Francis Cobb I, was paid £13 5d ‘for shoes for the poor’, and Beale, a tailor and draper, was paid 1s 4d ‘for gloves and other things’. Again, in 1731 Beale was paid 7d ‘for a pair of gloves for Peirce Lawrence’. In 1733 John Commett was paid £3 12s ½d ‘as per bill for clothes for the poor’. In 1738 Stephen Bennett, a draper or shopkeeper, was paid £1 7s 6½d for ‘shirts and other clothing for the poor’.
There are only a few examples of purchases of food for individual paupers. In 1719 Wid Bubb, probably an inn keeper, was paid 1s ‘for victuals and drink for a poor woman’ and in 1733 8d was spent to pay for bread ‘for Catherine Pattison in her illness’. As we have seen the overseers started to spend significant sums of money spent on food for the poor after 1727 when the poorhouse began to operate more like a workhouse. Presumably paupers living in their own homes were expected to pay for their food out of the money given to them by the overseers, if they could not grow it themselves. A number of purchases of coal are also recorded in the accounts. For example, Peter Wootton, a coal merchant was paid £3 13s 6d for coal in 1717 and £2 6s in 1719 for 2 chaldren of coal. In 1718 William Richardson was paid £4 16s 6d for 4 chalder and 5 bushels of coal ‘and for carriage to the poor’s cellar’. Other payments for coals were made to John Lister, a coal merchant and sexton, to Stephen Baker, a coal merchant and mariner, and to Nicholas Wellen, another coal merchant. It is likely that much of this coal was destined for the cellars of the Poorhouse but some of it could have been given to help the poor living in their own homes. By 1739 the overseers had decided that coal, except in special cases, would only be provided to the poor house:47
Whereas there has been for several years last past a large quantity of coals have been delivered by the Officers to the Poor of the parish. It is agreed in this present order of Vestry, there shall be no coals laid in or disposed of, for the use of the Poor, but only, for the Poor house. Except to such people as shall be agreed upon, by an order at Vestry for that purpose.
14 May 1739
The separation of the poor into those receiving regular disbursements and those receiving occasional relief was not immutable; someone starting with occasional relief would often end up relying totally on the parish. An example is provided by the wife of Paul Hart. Paul Hart was an inn keeper and one of Margate’s early postmasters but by 1716 the family had fallen on hard times, receiving £3 15s in relief from the parish. By 1726 Paul Hart was dead and ‘Widow Hart’ was given a payment of 2s and four payments of 1s 6d, being ‘in need’, but later that year she was paid a pension for 29 weeks of 1s 6d per week. Interestingly, in the overseers’ accounts she is sometimes referred to as Mrs Hart, the title ‘Mrs’ showing that she was of some standing in the parish despite her poverty. In 1727 she received payments of 2s 6d, again being ‘in want’, followed by periods of 14 weeks and 10 weeks at 1s 6d per week; she was also given 1s 8d for ‘a pair of irons’, 3s for ‘a blanket and rug’, and 10s 6d ‘at several times in sickness’. Her health had got worse by the end of the year as the wives of Peirse and Richard Blackbourne were paid 1s 4d and 2s 8d respectively for nursing her, after which she was nursed for 15 weeks by ‘Blackbourne’s girl’, who was paid 1s a week for doing so. During this time Widow Hart received a pension of 2s a week for 12 weeks, and 1s 6d a week for the remaining three. She died later in 1727 and the overseers accounts record that 2s 6d was paid for ‘burying Widd Hart’ with 9s 6d for ‘laying her forth, carrying her to church, beer, and other charges’.
The example of Widow Hart shows that the overseers were prepared to pay quite large sums of money to ensure that the poor received a decent burial. Many records in the overseers’ accounts show the importance they attached to providing hospitality, particularly beer, after a funeral; this was common in many parishes, the overseers trying to ensure that a pauper funeral did not symbolize ‘worthlessness, failure, and anonymity, but the social recognition and personal respectability of the deceased’.3 In 1716, 2s was paid ‘to laying out Widow Foreman when dead’, Widow Idley was paid 4d for making her shift, the minister and clerk were paid 2s for her burial, the sexton was paid 2s, and 3s was spent on beer ‘at her burying’. Again in 1716, Widow Granger and Widow Hews received 2s for ‘laying forth Aythorne’s girl’ and the minister, clerk and sexton received 3s 6d for burying her, although this time only 1s 6d was spent on beer following the funeral. In 1720 2s 6d was given to Gibbins ‘for drink at his fathers’ funeral’. Thomas Heros died in 1721 after having received parish relief for a year, and 1s was spent ‘to lay Thomas Heros forth when dead’, 3s 6d was given to the minister, clerk and sexton ‘for his burying’ and 2s 6d was spent ‘for beer drunk at his burying’. In 1721 there were a series of charges for beer at funerals; 5s 4d for ‘eight gallons of strong beer at Fasham’s Burying’, 4s for ‘six gallons strong beer at Widd Blackabee’s Funeral’, and 4s for ‘six gallons strong beer at Widd Castle’s funeral’. In 1723 3s was paid ‘to the men for laying forth William Goodbourne’, 8s was paid for a coffin, 3s 6d for funeral charges and 5s 7d ‘for beer at his funeral’. In 1731 Henry Petken, a local brewer and maltster, was paid 14s 8d ‘for beer for four funerals’ and in 1734 he got 4s ‘for 6 gallons of beer for the funeral of Smith daughter’.
In fact, the overseers spent rather a lot on beer. Payments to Widow Dixon, an Inn keeper, often appear in the overseers’ records. In 1716 she was paid 5s for beer drunk when the overseers determined the poor rate [‘at making my sess’]. She was also paid 1s 3d for beer ‘at the baptizing of Heros boy’ and, sadly, 1s 3d in 1719 ‘for beer at burial of Heros boy’. In 1717 she was paid 5s 6d ‘at making my sess’ and 4s 6d at ‘choosing officers.’ The biggest expenditure though seems to be by the overseers and parish clerk when travelling on parish business, although such payments usually appear as ‘charges’ or ‘expenses’. For example, in 1722 we have 6s 6d ‘for charges at Dover about Parish Business’ and 1s ‘for charges at St Peters’. In the travels of Michael Trapp to Dover and London in 1733 described later, we have 6s 9d spent on ‘victuals and drink for 4 of us on a passage to London’, and 6s spent on ‘expenses for 5 of us’.
One odd feature of funerals at this time was payment for burying in linen. This came about due to an Act of Parliament of 1666, revised in 1678, for ‘burying in woollen only’.48 The aim of the Act was to help the woollen manufacturers of the country and prevent the export of money to buy linen; the Act was not repealed until 1814. A certificate had to be obtained to prove that a body had been buried in a woollen shroud, and, to prevent collusion, the certificate had to be obtained from the vicar of a neighbouring parish; for St John’s this was usually the vicar of St Peter’s. If a family was determined that their loved one should be buried in linen they would have to pay a fine of £5, but, as long as they reported the fact of a burial in linen to the overseers, £2 10s was returned to them, the remaining £2 10s being distributed to the poor; the result was that burial in linen was a luxury just for the better off.26 In 1685 4s 6d was paid by the overseers to ‘Goodwife Pound and the Widd Ellmor for laying Ann Stokes forth, and for goeing to St Peters to make Oathe that she was buried in Woolen.’ Similarly the accounts for 1687 record the death of Katherine Messenger, a Traveller, and that the overseers paid 6s 8d ‘for carrying her to her Grave, and for the use of the Pier, and for Drink to one that made Oathe that she was buried in Woolen, and for the Certificate’. In 1686 the Overseers record that they had received £2 10s ‘of Widd Small for burying her husband in Lynnen’ and ‘of Widd Wright being buried in Lynnen’. In 1687 they again received sums of £2 10s from ‘Widd Price for burying her Husband in Lynnen’, from ‘Mrs Glover for her Mother being buried in Lynnen’, and from ‘Tho. Grant for burying his child in Lynnen.’ The overseers then record that £7 10s was ‘distributed to the poore of the parish’. However in 1688 the overseers record that they ‘Received of Tho. Thornden for burying his child in Lynnen [£2 10s] the which sume was given to him againe, he being a poore man.’
A further tax on burials was introduced in 1695 with the passage of an Act ‘for granting his Majesty certain rates and duties upon marriages, births, and buriels and upon bachelors and widowers, for the term of five years, for carrying on the war against France with vigour’.49 The Act introduced a tax of 4s per burial which, for the poor, had to be paid by the Overseers. In 1696 the Overseers paid 4s as part of the funeral expenses of Widow Pike and in 1698 they record the payment of 14s ‘for the Kings Dutyes on Buriall of Peter Marsh, John Fashams wife, Widd Foreman, and birth of Alice Poynters Child’. In 1702 the King’s duty had become the Queen’s duty, and the Overseers record the payment of 12s for ‘the Queens dutyes on the Burialls of Ovenden, Fashen, and Jarvis boy.’
Sometimes the Overseers would sell off the household goods of a parishioner who had died and who they had been supporting. In 1688, the Overseer’s accounts record a payment of 4d ‘for crying of Edw. Sandwells Goods’, in other words, for the Town Crier to announce that Sandwell’s goods were for sale; they also spent 1s 6d ‘for Bread and Beere at the selling of Edw. Sandwells Goods.’ At first sight this might appear to be rather harsh, but the Overseers had spent a significant amount of money at his funeral, in paying off his debts, and in supporting his children:
Paid Sarah Meakings for a Cask and Beere that Edw. Sandwell had of her — 1s 6d
Paid John Lister for ½ Chall. Of Coales Edw. Sandwell had of him — 8s
Paid things at Edw. Sandwells funeral and for Cloath [i.e. for burial suite] — £1 17s
Paid for Cloath for 2 Shifts for Edw. Sandwell daughter — 4s 3d
Paid for 12 oz. of Yarne to make Ed. Sandwells Childrens stockings — 2s
In 1702 we have a similar entry, with a payment of 4d ‘to Thomas Bishop for Crying the Widd. Baylyes Goods’, a widow whose burial was again paid for by the parish.26
Medical care for the poor was provided by both professional and amateur healers, the amateurs including bone-setters dealing with broken arms and legs and ‘wise women’ who cured leg ulcers and fungal infections such as scalled head or favus, a disease of the scalp that used to be common but is now easily treated.26 In 1680, William Laming’s wife was paid 2s 6d ‘for the cure of Widdow Roberts Legg’, Goody Ford in 1696 was paid 2s 6d ‘for cureing Widd Pikes Legg’ and in 1697 was again paid 2s 6d ‘for cureing Goody Hubbards Arme’; in 1701 and 1702 Goddy Dadds, the wife of Edward Dadds, was paid 1s 6d ‘for cureing Jarvis’ and £1 ‘for cureing Punnits head’. In 1702 Thomas Huffam’s wife received £1 ‘for cureing Haselton’s Legg’ and in 1703 she received 10s ‘for cureing Edw. Norwoods fingers’; in 1706 Goody Yeomans received £1 2s 6d ‘for cureing Pummett’s boys heads’. Widow Avery, apparently an unauthorised practitioner, was given 3s on two occasions in 1718 for ‘physick for Rys boy’ and in 1722 the parish paid 6d for ‘Rys’s boy letting blood’, hopefully by one of the local doctors.27 The accounts include very few references to payments for a midwife. In 1706 2s was paid ‘to the midwife for the Waygoing woman’ and in 1718 Goody Peney was paid 2s 6d ‘for delivering or laying of Jane Boys’.26,27 In 1722 ‘Mrs Wilds midwife’ was also paid 2s 6d; in 1735 she was paid 3s 6d for looking after Ester Mockett, and by 1737, when she was midwife for Pearse Lawrence’s wife, her payment had increased to 3s.
The local doctors operating in the parish have been described in Chapter 3. They would submit their bills at regular intervals to the overseers for their work with the poor; in 1717 Nicholas Chewney was paid £4 7s ‘as per bill’, Edward Jarvis was paid 15s in 1718 ‘for looking after sick and lame poor people’, £2 12s 6d in 1719 ‘as per bill’, and £3 5s 6d in 1724, and George Hammond was paid £3 14s in 1722 ‘as per bill’, and £2 2s in 1724. Thomas Watts appears to have been the first doctor with specific responsibility for the poor; in 1732 he was paid £6 6s ‘for medicine for the Poor by Agreement of the Parish’. However, the other doctors also continued to treat the poor; in 1732 Henry Wallis was paid £2 8s 8d ‘for physic and looking after the poor’, in 1734 Thomas Wheatley was paid £1 3s 11d ‘for doctoring and looking after the poor’, and in 1736 George Slater was paid £9 4s 10d, also ‘for doctoring and looking after the poor’. Simple blood letting cost 6d a time; in 1730 Henry Wallis was paid 6d ‘for letting one of the children’s blood’, which was what had been paid in 1722 for ‘Rys’s boy letting blood’. The parish even provided spectacles; in 1728 6d was paid for a pair of spectacles for Widd Inward and in 1733 2s 6d was paid to Gabrial Foard ‘in need and spactickles [spectacles]’.
With infectious diseases such as small pox special precautions were taken, including cleaning the house where the patient died, putting a lock and staple (for locking with a padlock) on the house door, and being particularly careful during the burial. An example occurred in 1708 when Widow Pegden died; unusually she was both socked, ‘to sock’ being Kentish Dialect meaning to shroud or wrap a corpse in grave clothes, and put in a coffin:26
For laying out Widd Pegden — 4s
For Socking for her — 3s
For a Coffin for her — 8s
For Grave and all Charges for Minister and Clark — 3s 6d
Paid in her Sickness — 3s 6d
For Carrying her to Church — 3s
Paid cleaning out the house — 1s
For a Lock and Staple — 8d 186
Complex and costly medical treatments warranted itemised bills in the overseers’ account books. In 1725 Edward Jarvis was paid £1 1s ‘for setting and curing Bird’s arm’ and in 1731 Henry Wallis was paid £3 ‘as per bill for curing Widd Everit’s son’. In 1733 George Slater was paid £4 15s for ‘curing Margaret Blackbourn’s leg’ and in 1736 he was paid £5 3s 6d ‘for doctoring and looking after Sarah Maynard’. In 1735 Thomas Wheatley was paid 1s ‘for doctoring Easter Mockett at the Poor-house’ and Walter Plummer was paid £3 10s 6d ‘for curing Wid Blackbourn’s boy’s head and other charges’. One case, that of a young boy, John Barton [Burton], was more complex. In 1728 the overseers spent 4s 6d for a consultation about ‘cutting the boy’s leg off’. The accounts for 1729 then contain a list of expenses for John Barton:
To a warrant to carry John Barton to Mrs Starks — 7s
To Counsellor Turner for advice on John Barton — 10s 6d
To Mr Turner and my journey to Canterbury at the sessions about John Barton — 11s
To the witnesses journey and expenses — 16s 6d
To Counsellor Turner’s pleading fee — 10s 6d
Counsellor Turner was a local lawyer to whom the overseers turned on several occasions for legal advice, but there is no clue as to why this particular case had to go to law. Nevertheless, it was decided to go ahead with the amputation and in 1729 Dr Watts received £5 5s ‘for cutting Barton’s leg’. The amputation must have been a success since a subsequent entry in the accounts is for 4s 6d ‘to a wooden leg for Barton’s boy’. Finally, in 1730 the parish agreed to spend £16 to apprentice John Barton to Francis Cobb; it is not known whether or not this Francis Cobb was related to the Cobb family who later became so important in the town.
Some medical cases were thought to be sufficiently serious to warrant treatment in a hospital. In 1732 Widow Grigg was paid 10s ‘to get her son in the hospital’. Three payments to hoymen make it clear that patients were being sent for treatment to hospitals in London; in 1734 Henry Petken was paid 4s 6d ‘for expenses in getting Smith’s daughter into the hospital’, in 1735 Stephen Baker was paid £1 6s ‘as per bill paid at St Thomas Hospital [London]’ and in 1737 John Simmons was paid £1 11s 6d ‘as per bill for the use of Robert Bubb and Thomas Dawson at the hospital’. In 1719 James Stone suffered from a stone in the bladder. The minute of a vestry meeting records that a collection had been made in the town ‘so that he [James Stone] can be cut for stone’. The meeting decided that if the collection did not reach the required sum, the parish officers could take the balance from the poor’s rate. In fact the costs involved were considerable. Stone travelled to and from London in Stephen Pamflett’s hoy, for which Pamflett was paid 9s; Pamflett was also given £11 7s 6d ‘for the use of James Stone’, presumably whilst in London, and a further 4s 6d ‘to pay the Apothecary, for the use of James Stone’.
Treatment of the long term mentally ill was particularly harsh. In the period covered by the overseers’ accounts there is only one clear case of mental illness - that of John Norwood, a cordwainer or shoemaker. An entry in 1719 records a payment of 1s 4d ‘for John Norwood’s windows’, perhaps mending them or putting bars over them. This was followed in 1720 by payments totalling £1 15s to his wife ‘at several times in need’. In 1721 there is a payment of 6d to a barber ‘to shave John Norwood,’ and in 1722 a payment of 2s to John Norwood himself and a further six payments of 6d a time to Francis Dixon, a barber, ‘for John Norwood’s shaving’. By 1723 the situation had got worse, both for John Norwood and his wife. In that year his wife was again ‘in need’ and received 2s 6d, and John Norwood was again shaved by Francis Dixon. However, the accounts now include 5s ‘for a new chain for John Norwood’, 4s paid to Thomas Sprackling, a carpenter, ‘for work about John Norwood’s house’, and 5s for ‘charges for confining John Norwood’. Later in the year 1723 his wife was given a further 7s 6d and a further 1s 3d was spent ‘when John Norwood was chained.’ In 1724 his wife was given 10s and Francis Dixon was paid 1s 2d ‘for shaving John Norwood’s head’. The situation had become even more serious by 1725 when 5s 9d was spent for ‘four men to help about John Norwood’ with 6s being spent ‘about Parish Business, confining John Norwood’, with a further 6s ‘for straw for John Norwood’s house’; he also had his head shaved once again by Francis Dixon for 6d. Later in 1725 it was finally decided that he had to be moved to London, presumably to an asylum. The accounts record a payment of 2s 6d to John Norwood himself and a payment of 9s 6d to get him on board a hoy and ‘for several things, as shoes, britches, hat, cap for him’ so that he would be properly clothed. There seem to have been two minders looking after him on the journey; Thomas Walton was paid £2 10s ‘to carry John Norwood to London’ and Mark Browne was paid £1 1s ‘for [going] up to London with John Norwood’. Finally Stephen Baker, a mariner, was paid £1 10s ‘for charges about John Norwood’, and Richard Laming, a hoyman, was paid £6 8s 6d for carrying John Norwood to London, the high charge probably meaning that Norwood and his minders were the only passengers on the hoy. Meanwhile, in Margate, William Cook, a mason, was paid 6s ‘for work about John Norwood’s house’ and Thomas Barber, a carpenter, was also paid £5 0s 3d ‘for work done at John Norwood’s house’. There is no record of what finally happened to him.
The overseers effectively adopted destitute orphan children and supported children whose parents could not themselves afford to support them. This could take the form of weekly payments, referred to as a pension, made to someone in the parish to look after the children, or payments for clothing and shoes. For example, in 1666 Thomas Foster was paid 6s ‘for shooes and mending of shooes for severall children that are Pensioners’.26 The overseers would pay generous premiums so that children could be apprenticed, or ‘bound-out’, to work as servants or apprentices to masters or mistresses willing to maintain and train them; they would also contribute towards the costs of the children’s clothing during their apprenticeship. In 1666 Edward Hurt was paid £2 10s for taking Rendall as an apprentice, and John Freeman was paid £5 for taking Thomas Tadd as an apprentice with a further 10d ‘spent at the ensealing of his indenture’; that year the overseers also paid 12s 6d to ‘Widd Grant a yeares rent for Rob. Tadd’s widow’, the death of Robert Tadd presumably driving his wife and son into poverty. In 1721 Daniel Allen was given £3 for taking on a female apprentice, and the parish also paid 10s ‘to clothe her more’, 4s for making her Indentures and 3s 6d for ‘money spent when the Indentures were signed’, probably beer to ensure that the event was properly celebrated. In 1719 Nicholas Wellen, a coal merchant, was paid 7s 6d for taking a boy, and 1½d was ‘spent at binding the boy’; in 1719 John Kennett, a tailor, was paid 2s 10d ‘for a pair of britches for Wellen’s boy’, in 1721 1s was paid to provide him with a pair of stockings, and in 1723 William Laming was paid 2s 6d ‘for a shirt and worsted’ for him. In 1728 the overseers paid Mr Wells, a farmer, £5 to take the son of John Thornden, a carter, as an apprentice. John Thornden was ill and in financial difficulty at the time, as in 1728 the overseers gave him 3d for a knife, 6d for a comb, 2s 6d for a hat and 8d for ‘a pair of half-legs’; in 1729 the overseers paid 3s 6d ‘to bring John Thornden from Brooksend’, 3s 6d ‘to Widd Sackett for nursing him’ and then 6s ‘for his funeral charges’. In 1728 the overseers paid Mrs Quince £5 to take Elizabeth Laming as an apprentice; they also paid 8s for a ‘hood and petticoat’ for her. In 1731 the overseers paid John Kerby, a shoemaker, £1 6s 8d ‘for taking W. Pierces girl apprentice’, and 3s 6d was spent ‘for necessaries for Thomas Huse to sea.’ In 1733 the overseers paid £4 5s ‘for clothing and putting out Brooks boy to [Francis Dixon] the barber’ and 12s to Daniel Butler, an attorney ‘for indentures and bond for ditto’.
Of course not all apprenticeships worked out well, and the local papers contained frequent advertisements for the return of run-away apprentices. A typical example appeared in the Kentish Post in November 1732 and is particularly interesting in providing details about how a young farm labourer of the time would have been dressed:50
Run away from Edward Bings near Margate in the Isle of Thanet, on Sunday the 12th instant, George Simpson, a boy; about 15 years of age, pretty much pitted with the small-pox, and thin brown hair; he had on when he went off, a new light-coloured coat and waistcoat, trimm’d with the same colour, and sheep-skin breeches, with black buttons, and had also with him an old coarse cloth coat, the sleeves turn’d up with blue, and a yellow waistcoat; whoever brings him to the said Edw. Bings, or secures him and sends word so that he may fetch him, shall have satisfaction for the same.
The overseers were less keen to support the children of unmarried mothers, thinking that parents should be made to pay; when they didn’t it was necessary to apply to Dover for a warrant to enforce payment. In 1682 the overseers paid 3s 6d ‘for fetching the warrants for the bastard children’.26 In 1739 an entry was made at the front of the overseers’ account book:47
Whereas complaint has been made to the Justices of the Poor concerning bastard children. And no redress or account has been taken to bring the offenders in that kind to correction. It is mutually agreed by the Church Wardens, Overseers, and the Parishioners whose names are underwritten – being met at a Vestry lawfully called that the Fathers and Mothers of such child or children, who do not provide for them as the law directs in such case and the Justices will not take any account of them as heretofore to bring them to correction or punishment. We do oblige ourselves to look and enquire further into such affairs that the offenders in this kind shall be brought to moderate correction to be whipped or otherwise and to put them to hard labour in order for the maintenance of such Bastard Children. And further it is mutually agreed by us whoes names are underwritten that the charge and expense that shall arise in prosecuting all such offenders above mentioned shall be paid out of the Poor Sess.
The overseers spent much money moving people out of the parish who had no right of settlement and were thought might become a charge on the parish. In 1716 the overseers gave Robert Sackett 2s 9d for ‘carrying a woman and three children to Canterbury’ and in 1719 John Thornden was paid 3s ‘for carrying a poor woman to Sandwich’. In 1720 10s 9d was spent for ‘carrying a big bellied woman out of the parish.’ In 1728 the overseers gave Widd Jolley £1 ‘to bear her charges’ and gave a hoyman 6s ‘for her and her children’s passage to London’. In 1730 the overseers paid Daniel Pamflett, a hoyman, 8s ‘for the passage of Atkins wife and children to London’. Things could, however, get expensive if the law became involved. In 1723 the overseers spent a total of £1 10s 6d on removing John Hemmings from Margate to Rochester:
For a warrant and summons to remove John Hemmings — 6s 8d
To carry John Hemmings to Rochester, expences and journey — 8s
For a warrant and charges as the Roade, for Hemmings — 6s 8d
To a journey to Dover for a Warrant for Hemmings — 6s 8d
To John Hemmings for his charges home — 2s 6d
In another case, in 1731, the overseer’s moved Ann Poole out of the parish. They first paid 4s ‘for a horse and man to carry Ann Poole to Chislett’. It is unclear why this was done, as the overseers then paid 8s to the Parish Clerk, Michael Trapp, for his ‘journey to Ash and Canterbury with Ann Poole’ and 2s ‘for a warrant and examination’, presumably at Canterbury. The overseers had also to pay 4s ‘for horse and man to carry Ann Poole to Ash’ and 5s 9d ‘for expenses, 2 days, for Ann Poole’. Then in 1732 they paid 10s 6d ‘to the Counsel retaining fee’, £1 1s ‘for myself [Michael Trapp] and both Churchwardens for our journey to Canterbury at the trial of Ann Poole and Isaac Parrau at the Sessions’ and £1 11s 6d ‘to the Councellers fee for the two causes’. Finally the parish had to pay £1 3s ‘to Ash parish by order of court for Ann Poole’ and a further 10s 9d for ‘our expenses and Court Charges’, a total cost for moving Ann Poole from St John’s to Ash of £6 0s 6d. And that was not the end of it. In 1738 3s was spent ‘on parish business on account of Ann Pool’ and 3s 8d on examining Ann Pool at the White Hart in Margate before a Mr Wellard, possibly from Dover, it seeming that Ann Pool was protesting about her transfer to Ash. In 1732 Mary Norwood was also sent to Ash, this time it seeming that the case was settled at Dover. The overseers spent 6s 8d ‘for horse-hire and my [Michael Trapp] journey to Dover with Mary Norwood’, and they paid 7s 6d to Mr Swinford, a farmer, ‘for horse-hire and servant to Dover with her.’ A further 2s 6d was spent on unspecified expenses and 7s ‘for a warrant and examination to remove her to Ash’. Finally the overseers paid 4s ‘for expenses with Mary Norwood’, probably incurred at wayside pubs on the route.
An even more extraordinary case dates to 1733 and concerns the transfer of a woman, a traveller or ‘stranger’, and her child from the Poorhouse to a Poorhouse in London; the cost was £7 13s 10d and occupied Michael Trapp for 9 days:
To a journey to Canterbury and Councils fee about a stranger and child — 7s 6d
To a journey to Dover, a warrant, examination, and oath — 8s 6d
To money paid for a cart to carry the woman and child to Dover — 15s
To money paid at Dover for a horse and man to go to Sr Bassalls [probably a reference to Sir Basil Dixwell, Governor of Dover Castle] for the mayor and other justices there, 4s, and expenses for 5 of us 6s — 10s
To money paid for ferry for the horse and cart — 2s 4d
To money paid for necessaries the same time — 1s 6d
To money paid for a cart to carry the woman and child aboard of the hoy, and other help — 1s 3d
To money paid for victuals and drink for 4 of us on a passage to London — 6s 9d
To money paid for charges in getting her ashore, with boats and porters — 3s
To money for charges for getting her to Islington, victuals and my [Michael Trapp] expenses with the Officers [of the Poor house there] — 9s 6d
To my charges and expenses the next day to go to Hanvel [possibly Hanwell] with the child — 15s 6d
To my expenses for my self and Feby [Phoebe] and Lodging that night — 5s 6d
To money spent with the Officers of Hanvel — 2s
To money paid for our expenses in getting back to London — 6s 6d
To money paid for lodging, for victuals, for myself and Feby at London — 10s
To money paid for provisions and our passage down [hoy] — 8s
To my expenses to London, 9 days from Home — £1 1s
In 1733 the overseers embarked on a series of forced evictions from the parish. The process started with payment of 5s 2d ‘for a warrant from Dover by the News-man’, the newsman being one of the men who distributed the local Canterbury paper, the Kentish Post, throughout the region. Paying a newsman was a cheaper way of getting a warrant from Dover to Margate than sending a man especially to Dover to collect it. Having obtained their warrant the overseers then paid two men 3s ‘for taking charge of Wm. Fisher’ and three men 3s ‘for taking charge of several men’. It is noticeable that there is no mention of the use of constables on this occasion, and, indeed, the parish records of the period contain no mention of parish constables.
Having ‘taken charge’ of the men the real expenses started:
To money paid for a journey to Dover and horse-hire — 6s 8d
To money paid for the Counsellers Fee concerning Elgar — 10s 6d
To money for expenses — 1s
To money paid for examination, warrant and copy for Tho. Smith — 7s
To money paid for removing of Goodman Goatum (Goatham) — 1s
To money paid for examination, warrant, and copy for Hen. Bassett and Jn. Mason, each — 7s
To a warrant to remove Wm. Elgar, Jn. Hubbard, Wm. Pegden, Ed. Coleman each — 4s
To money paid for a Counsel retaining fee and pleading — £2 2s
To money paid for charge at the same time (not allowed) — 1s 6d
To money spent on the Mayor and Jurats of Dover — 1s
To money paid for Wm. Fisher, wife, and children for lodging, drink, and victuals at London — 2s 3d
To Stephen Baker [hoyman] for their passage to London — 6s
To Mr. Jewell [Valentine Jewell, White Hart] for 2 horse heirs [hiring of two horses] to Dover — 10s
Also a worry to the overseers were the ‘waygoers’ or travellers who would, ‘if necessitous’, be a charge on the parish. Rather than put them in the poorhouse the overseers boarded them out in the parish and then encourage them to move on. Here is an example from 1732:
To Isaac Reynalls for lodging and nursing a traveller — 4d
To money paid for charges in removing her — 1s
To money for wine for the traveller — 1s
To money for wine for the travelling woman — 1s
Despite the best efforts of the Overseers, the parish rates increased inexorably over this period. Lewis estimated that, based on the Overseers Accounts, the total expenditure on the poor in the years 1663 and 1664 was:17
In the Year 1663 — £84 3s 6d
In the Year 1664 — £72 16s 8d
By the years 1701 and 1702 the bill had increased dramatically:
In the Year 1701 — £303 10s 9d
In the Year 1702 — £279 1s 2d
Lewis attributed this largely to the ‘decay of the Fishing here, with the falling off of the foreign trade, and the removal of so many of the substantial Inhabitants on that Account, from this place to London’.17
Margate kabla ya kuogelea baharini: 1300-1736 (Sura ya 4): Sheria ya Masikini na Masikini huko Margate: Hadi katikati ya karne ya 16 misaada ya maskini ilikuwa mikononi mwa waziri wa parokia. Alipaswa kuwa 'kuwahimiza na kuchochea watu kuwa wakarimu na wakarimu' na 'kuwahimiza wafuasi wa parokia kutoa mchango wa ukarimu' kwa ajili ya kuunga mkono maskini wa parokia. Wakati wa utawala wa Elizabeth I, ongezeko la idadi ya watu wa Uingereza kutoka milioni tatu hadi nne pamoja na mfululizo wa mavuno duni katika miaka ya 1590s, ilisababisha bei ya chakula ya juu na idadi kubwa ya watu wasio na makazi na wasio na kazi. Hofu kwamba hilo lingesababisha kuvunjika kwa sheria na utaratibu ilisababisha sheria zilizokusudiwa kuwasaidia maskini. Sheria ya 1572 iliondoa utegemezi wa kukusanya kwa hiari kwa misaada ya maskini na kuibadilisha na mfumo wa kiwango cha maskini kulingana na tathmini ya lazima na mkusanyiko.Masharti kadhaa katika Sheria ya 1572 yalitatuliwa katika Sheria za baadaye za 1597 na 1601, hatimaye kuunda mfumo wa misaada ya maskini ambayo ilibaki kwa nguvu kwa karne mbili na nusu zijazo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika mwongozo uliochapishwa kwa ajili ya kuelimisha maofisa wa parokia, ""Sheria ya Elizabeth inawagawanya maskini katika makundi mawili, wale wenye uwezo wa kufanya kazi, na wale wasio na uwezo; na inaelekeza jinsi wanavyopaswa kutunzwa, yaani kwa kuwaweka wale wa kwanza kufanya kazi, na kwa kuwapa wale wa pili msaada unaohitajika.""6 Wale wasio na uwezo walikuwa wazee na walio dhaifu, wasio na baba na wasio na mama, walemavu, vipofu, wagonjwa, wapumbavu, na wengine." Sheria za Masikini zilitambua ukweli kwamba idadi kubwa ya wanaume na wanawake walikuwa na uwezo wa kupata riziki na kwa hakika hawakuwa na fursa ya kuokoa kwa ajili ya uzee wao. "Thomas Ruggles, katika kitabu chake cha ""History of the Poor"" cha mwaka wa 1797 alisisitiza umuhimu wa sheria za maskini: ""Kazi ya mfanyakazi, pamoja na asili ya maisha yake, humfanya awe na magonjwa makali, magonjwa ya kudumu, na mwishowe uzee, ukosefu wa nguvu na ukosefu wa nguvu." . . Bila msaada wa majirani zake wenye utajiri zaidi, au, kile ambacho ni sifa isiyo na kikomo kwa taifa hili, bila kuingiliwa na sheria za kimungu za nchi yake, darasa hili muhimu la wananchi wetu lingezama katika mikono ya njaa au kukata tamaa. <unk> <unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk><unk> Kazi hiyo ilipewa maafisa wasio na mshahara walioteuliwa kila mwaka na kila parokia, wanaojulikana kama Wasimamizi wa Masikini; kila parokia ilikuwa na wasimamizi kati ya wawili na wanne. Walinzi walipaswa kukusanya kodi ya mahali hapo inayoitwa kiwango cha maskini inayolipwa na wakazi wa parokia na wenyeji wa ardhi katika parokia.3,9 Kazi ya kwanza ya wasimamizi walioteuliwa hivi karibuni ilikuwa kukadiria kiwango cha maskini kinachohitajika ili kufidia gharama za mwaka ujao. Waliagizwa kupata'mashahara ya pesa na. . . mali nyingine parokia na nyaraka kutoka wasimamizi marehemu <unk> na kisha <unk> kwa uangalifu kuchunguza hali ya akaunti parokia, kuthibitisha idadi ya wakazi maskini katika maskini-nyumba, kiasi cha fedha kulipwa kwa nje ya wastaafu, wastani wa malipo kwa ajili ya majeruhi. . . "Wanaweza kuamua kwa kiasi gani na wakati gani itabidi kulipa kodi kwa ajili ya misaada ya maskini, na kwa madhumuni mengine ambayo kiwango hicho kinaweza kutumika. ""6" Kama ilivyoelezwa katika Sura ya 3, kiwango cha maskini kilitolewa kwa mali ndani ya parokia ambayo faida hutokana nayo, kiwango hicho kikiwa kimetegemea thamani ya kukodisha ya mali. Waangalizi walionekana kuwa na uhuru mkubwa wa kuamua ni nani angelipa kiwango cha maskini, na mtu yeyote aliyehesabiwa kuwa maskini sana kulipa kiwango hicho aliachiliwa. "Watu wa parokia waliolipa kiwango cha maskini wangetarajia wasimamizi wa parokia kuweka kiwango hicho chini iwezekanavyo, na wasimamizi wengi walidhani jukumu lao lilikuwa ""kuweka maskini wao chini iwezekanavyo"" na ""kuondoa idadi ya watu katika parokia ili kupunguza kiwango cha maskini.""" Hata hivyo, inawezekana kwamba ubinadamu huo ungekuwa umeenea tu kwa maskini "wanaostahili" na si kwa maskini "wasio na staha", maskini wenye uwezo wa kufanya kazi, wale waliohukumiwa kuwa na uwezo wa kufanya kazi lakini hawakutaka kufanya hivyo. Msaada kwa ajili ya maskini waliostahili ulitolewa kwa njia kadhaa. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu The Parochial Lawyer, au Churchwarden and Overseer's Guide and Assistant: ""Mwalimu mkuu, kama si wajibu wa kwanza wa waangalizi, ni kupata kazi kwa ajili ya maskini; na hii ni wajibu wao kufanya, si tu kwa ajili ya kupunguza mizigo ya parokia, lakini kwa ajili ya maskini wenyewe, ambao hakuna wema mkubwa inaweza kufanywa kuliko kwa kuwawezesha kupata maisha yao wenyewe kwa kazi, badala ya wao kula mkate wa idleness, ambayo desturi zao na maadili lazima hivi karibuni kuwa na uharibifu. ""6" Pesa zilizokusanywa kwa njia hii zitatumika kulipia kazi ya maskini na, bila shaka, kusaidia kuweka chini viwango vya maskini. "Ilikadiriwa kwamba wasimamizi wanapaswa kuwashawishi wafanyabiashara wa eneo hilo kununua bidhaa zinazozalishwa na maskini, kwa sababu hiyo ingekuwa nzuri kwa parokia. ""Kwa watu wenye uwezo wa kufanya kazi ya mikono, lakini wasio na ajira, wasimamizi wanaweza pia kutoa ajira kwa kununua au kukodisha ardhi katika parokia ambapo wanaweza kuajiri na kuweka kazi katika kilimo chake, kwa ajili ya parokia, watu wowote ambao kwa sheria wameelekezwa kuweka kazi, na wanaweza kulipa watu maskini kama hao wanaofanya kazi kama hawawezi kuungwa mkono na parokia." 6 Vinginevyo, wasimamizi wangeweza kukodisha ardhi ya parokia "kwa kila mkaaji maskini na mwenye bidii wa parokia" ambayo wangeweza kuilima kwa faida yao wenyewe. Kwa bahati mbaya, "ugumu wa kuanzisha biashara kwa ajili ya ajira ya maskini chini ya usimamizi wa wasimamizi" ilikuwa hivyo kwamba kanuni walikuwa mara chache kuweka katika mazoezi na, hata hivyo, walikuwa baadaye kufanywa redundant na kuanzishwa kwa workhouses. "Wanafunzi walipewa jukumu la kuwasaidia ""masikini kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa uwezo na kasoro"" - yaani, wale ambao hawawezi kufanya kazi na hawawezi kujitegemeza wenyewe, lakini tu katika kesi ambapo jamaa zao hawawezi kuwategemeza: baba na babu, mama na nyanya, na watoto wa kila maskini, mzee, kipofu, kipofu, na mtu mwingine asiye na uwezo wa kufanya kazi, lazima awasaidie kila mtu maskini kulingana na kiwango ambacho mkutano mkuu utaamua, kwa adhabu ya shilingi ishirini kwa mwezi, "" (Mdo. 6 Wale waliohitaji msaada kutoka kwa parokia wangeweza kuwekwa katika nyumba ya kazi ya parokia, ikiwa kulikuwa na moja, au kuungwa mkono kwa kuwapa pensheni ndogo kila wiki au vinginevyo, au kwa misaada ya mara kwa mara katika pesa, vyakula, au nguo, malipo yanayoitwa "msaada wa nje". Msaada wa kawaida, kama vile pensheni, ulitolewa tu katika hali mbaya zaidi, hasa kwa wajane wazee, na mara nyingi ulitolewa kwa wapokeaji mara moja kwa wiki katika ukumbi wa kanisa baada ya mahubiri ya Jumapili asubuhi, kuhakikisha kwamba wangekuwa wahudhuriaji wa kawaida wa kanisa. Watoto ambao hawakuweza kuungwa mkono na wazazi wao wangeweza kufundishwa, au "kufungwa nje", kufanya kazi kama watumishi au wanafunzi kwa mabwana au mabibi walio tayari kuwahifadhi na kuwafundisha, parokia ikilipa ada ya ufundi. Watoto walikuwa kawaida bound nje kati ya miaka saba na kumi, mafunzo kuendelea hadi umri wa miaka 24 kwa wanaume au hadi miaka 21 kwa wanawake au juu ya ndoa. wavulana pia inaweza kutumwa baharini: 'parish-ofisa wanaweza, kwa idhini ya mahakimu wawili. . . "Mvulana yeyote mwenye umri wa miaka kumi au zaidi, ambaye ni wajibu kwa parokia, au ambaye wazazi wake ni wajibu, au ambaye anaomba, kwa huduma ya bahari, kwa bosi yeyote au mmiliki wa meli au chombo, mpaka atakapokuwa na umri wa miaka ishirini na moja.""" Wakati wa kufungwa, watamlipa bwana hamsini kwa nguo na vitambaa, na watatuma hati za kuajiri kwenye bandari ambayo bwana anamiliki, na pia kumpeleka mwanafunzi huko. <unk> 6 Waangalizi walitarajiwa kuhakikisha kwamba maskini tu wa parokia yao walipokea msaada kutoka kwa parokia. Hii ilisababisha mabishano mengi kati ya parokia, moja ikisema kwamba mtu fulani maskini hakuwa wao, lakini kwa kweli alikuwa wa parokia nyingine. Sheria ya 1662 iliamua kwamba mtu aliyekaa katika parokia ya Uingereza alikuwa na haki ya kukodisha nyumba yake kwa miaka saba, na kwamba mwanamke aliyekaa katika parokia ya Uingereza alikuwa na haki ya kukodisha nyumba yake kwa miaka saba. Mwishowe, mtu yeyote ambaye alikuwa ameishi katika parokia kwa zaidi ya siku 40 bila kulalamika dhidi yake, alikuwa na kutoa taarifa ya kuwasili kwake kwa mwangalizi, na ikiwa mwangalizi alidhani kwamba mwangalizi huyo alikuwa na uwezekano wa kuwa na malipo ya kiwango cha maskini, alikuwa na siku 40 za kulalamika na mahakimu wawili wa amani. Sheria hizo zilikuwa na athari mbaya ya kupunguza uhamaji na kuwazuia watu wasio na kazi kuondoka parokia waliyozaliwa ili kupata kazi mahali pengine. Sheria za makazi ziliendelea hadi 1834 wakati zilipobadilishwa na masharti ya Sheria ya Marekebisho ya Masikini.14 Masikini huko Margate, parokia ya St. John's ilikuwa na wakulima wachache matajiri, wafanyabiashara, hoymen na malters, lakini idadi kubwa ya wakazi walikuwa mabaharia, wavuvi, wakulima wadogo na wafanyakazi, na familia zao, na, bila shaka, maskini. Kwa kusikitisha, tofauti kati ya maskini na wafanyakazi mara nyingi haikuwa wazi; wafanyakazi wengi na familia zao waliishi kwa kiwango cha juu tu cha kuishi. "Ilikadiriwa kwamba mwishoni mwa karne ya kumi na saba, mapato ya karibu £ 30 hadi £ 40 kwa mwaka yangehitajika ili kuhifadhi familia, tuseme ya mwanamume, mke wake, na watoto watatu, bila njaa na bila madeni.Wanachama wa ""burjuazi ndogo"" kwa kawaida wangekuwa na mapato ya kati ya £ 50 na £ 100 kwa mwaka na ""mtu wa kawaida"" angehitaji angalau £ 300 ili kudumisha mtindo wa maisha wa busara. """ "Mwaka wa 1724 katika mkutano wa Quarter Sessions huko Maidstone, Uingereza, ilitangazwa kwamba mshahara wa ""mkuu wa kulima"" katika Kent ungekuwa £ 5 kwa mwaka, kwa ""mshirika wa kulima"" £ 3 kwa mwaka, na kwa ""mvulana"" kati ya umri wa miaka 14 na 18, £ 2 kwa mwaka; mfanyakazi wa shamba aliyeajiriwa kwa siku alipaswa kupokea £ 14 kwa siku wakati wa majira ya joto na £ 10 kwa siku wakati wa majira ya baridi kali." . . "Watu wengi wa kisiwa hicho wanaenda baharini au wanafanya kazi katika mashamba ya hops, na wanawapa wafanyakazi wao mishahara mikubwa sana.""17 Kitabu cha mwongozo cha eneo hilo cha mwaka 1763 kilithibitisha kwamba katika kisiwa cha Thanet ""mashahara ya wafanyakazi na watumishi ni ya juu sana"" na kwamba ""wakati wa vita watu wengi wanaingia katika jeshi la wanamaji kwa uhakika wa mshahara bora au kwa matumaini ya kupata zawadi ya fedha au upendeleo, hivi kwamba si rahisi kupata wafanyakazi wa kutosha kufanya kazi ya kilimo, kwa bei yoyote." "Wangekuwa na chakula kisichofaa, cha hali ya chini, nyumba mbaya, bila usafi wa mazingira, makaa ya mawe machache ya kupasha joto wakati wa majira ya baridi kali, na kazi ngumu na yenye kuchosha bila matarajio ya kuweka pesa kwa ajili ya uzee wao.""" "Kama Roy Porter alivyosema, ""kila mtu aliye chini ya kipato cha fundi mwenye ujuzi alikuwa na njaa,"" watu wengi, ikiwa si wengi, waliishi maisha ya umaskini wa kukata tamaa, umaskini bila msaada na bila matumaini ya kuboresha.15 Familia nzima, ikiwa ni pamoja na watoto wenye umri wa miaka saba au zaidi, ilitarajiwa kufanya kazi, na ajali ndogo au ugonjwa unaowagusa washiriki wowote wa familia inaweza kusababisha umaskini." Matokeo yalikuwa kwamba wakazi wengi wa Margate wangekuwa wamegemea wakati fulani katika maisha yao juu ya wema wa wengine, wakati mwingine majirani zao na wakati mwingine "wazuri" wao. Kwa kweli, wengi wa wale wenye cheo cha juu waliona kuwa ni wajibu wao kutumia sehemu ya utajiri wao ili kupunguza taabu miongoni mwa walio chini yao. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya mafundisho ya Mathayo, ""Msijikusanyie hazina duniani, ambapo nondo na kutu huiharibu.""" . . "Lakini kutoa kwa maskini pia kulitoa njia ya kudhibiti tabia yao; kuelekeza msaada ingawa kanisa linaweza kuwachochea maskini kuhudhuria kanisa, na kutoa tu kwa ""wenye akili timamu na wenye haki"" inaweza kuwafanya maskini wawe na bidii zaidi katika njia zao." Kwa hakika, matajiri hawakuwa na nia ya kuwaangamiza maskini; wote wawili walifikiriwa kuwa na nafasi yao katika jamii. "William Temple aliandika hivi mwaka 1739: ""Njia pekee ya kuwafanya maskini wawe na bidii ni kuwafanya wafanye kazi kwa muda wote wanaouweza kupata kutoka kwa kupumzika na kulala, ili kupata mahitaji ya kawaida ya maisha.""19 Hii ilikuwa maoni ya kawaida; mwaka 1771 Arthur Young aliandika: ""Kila mtu isipokuwa mjinga anajua kwamba jamii ya chini lazima iendelee kuwa maskini au hawatakuwa na bidii kamwe.""" Bila shaka, baadhi ya wakazi matajiri wa parokia huenda bado walitaka kufanya matendo ya kibinafsi ya kutoa misaada, na kwa kweli, wachache waliwapa maskini katika mapenzi yao. Kwa mfano, George Collmer, baada ya kuacha ardhi yake kwa mkewe, aliacha 12s kila mmoja kwa 'wanaume wanne wa baharini wa St. Johns. . . "Kwa mfano, katika mwaka wa 1581 Roger Laming alitoa wito kwa St. John's Parish ili kuondoa ""mwenyeji wa St. John"" kutoka kwa St. John's Parish, na katika mwaka wa 1581 alitoa wito kwa St. John's Parish kwa ajili ya ""mwenyeji wa St. John"" kutoka kwa St. John's Parish." Mama Tuttall ana nyumba ya Bawdry, ambayo imewekwa kwa ajili ya maskini wa parokia, na mwanawe na Agnes Billing wanaishi pamoja huko, lakini hawajaolewa. Nyakati nyingine urithi wa kila mwaka wa pesa ulipuuzwa. "Katika mwaka wa 1581, Churchwardens walilalamika: ""Tunaona maskini wa parokia yetu wameachwa na shilingi sita zilizotolewa kwao, kulipwa kila mwaka kutoka kwa ardhi na nyumba ya John Hartye, kwa mapenzi na hati ya mwisho ya John Hartye, iliyoshikiliwa na William Matson, sasa mmiliki wa nyumba hiyo na ardhi.""" Nyakati nyingine tatizo lilikuwa kukosa nia ya kutoa urithi. "Mwaka 1596 Mwalimu wa Kanisa alilalamika juu ya ""John Baldwin wa parokia yetu ya St. John's, kwa sababu hiyo hiyo na ripoti inaenda kwamba anaweka mikononi mwake kiasi cha £ 10 iliyotolewa na William Horn, marehemu wa parokia ya St. Peter's huko Thanet, kwa fidia ya kanisa na sanduku la maskini la parokia hiyo, ambayo £ 10 kama hotuba inavyosemwa ililipwa mikononi mwa Baldwin aliyekataa kutoa sawa, au kutoa usalama wowote kwa malipo yake." Ni miaka saba iliyopita au hivyo tangu alisema urithi zilitolewa, na Kanisa na maskini wamekuwa wanataka sawa, kuwa na faida yoyote ya hayo kama tunavyojua. "Mwaka 1613 John Thurlow alishtakiwa kwa ""kuzuia urithi fulani au kodi ya nyumba kutoka kwa yatima maskini au mtoto anayeishi katika parokia yetu, aitwaye William Adams, kwa miaka mitatu au minne iliyopita, kuwa na 18s 4d kila mwaka, kama vile inavyokwenda katika parokia yetu.""" Aliitwa mbele ya mahakama ya Archdeacon na kukiri kwamba kuna 12s 6d kwa miaka mitatu au hivyo karibu katika mkono wake kutokana na hapo juu William Adams, lakini alisema kwamba alisema Adams ni wafu na kuondoka maisha haya, na hakuna utawala wake bado kuchukuliwa kwamba anajua, hivyo kama yeye hajui kwa nani kulipa sawa. 1620 - Alexander Platt, mtekelezaji wa mapenzi ya mwisho na mapenzi ya John Terry, marehemu wa parokia ya St. John the Baptist, aliripotiwa kwa Archdeacon kwa kukataa kulipa urithi wa pauni tatu kwa wasimamizi wa maskini wa parokia ya Westgate, iliyotolewa na kuachwa katika mapenzi ya mwisho na mapenzi ya marehemu, kama ilivyoonyeshwa hapo na kwa hivyo. Hii Platt dwelleth katika Ewell katika parokia ya Faversham au Goodneston kama sisi ni taarifa. Watu matajiri wakati mwingine waliacha pesa ili kuanzisha mashirika ya kutoa misaada kwa ajili ya maskini (Mwongozo wa kumi na saba). "Mwaka wa 1513, Ethelred Barrow alimwamuru William Curling, mtekelezaji wa sheria ya kanisa, ""kuandaa kila mwaka kwa ajili ya watu maskini, kila mwaka kwa siku ya St. James, na hata katika parokia za kibinafsi, sherehe hizo za kila mwaka zilikuwa na karamu na watu wengi, na watu wengi waliendelea kuelezea kwamba katika parokia hii kulikuwa na ""mwenyeji, Fairon Fair,"" kanisa la St. James, ambalo lilitolewa kwa ajili ya siku ya St. James, lakini hakuna sherehe ya St. James au St. John the Baptist." . . "Mfano wa zawadi ya kwanza ya upendo ulifanywa na Thomas Taddeus, ambaye mwaka 1566 alitoa £ 30 kununua ardhi katika Crow Hill, ili kukodishwa na kodi ya kila mwaka kwa milele kugawanywa, kushughulikiwa na kupewa maskini na wahitaji wa Parokia.""" Mwaka 1594 John Allen, wa Drapers, alitoa kwa ajili ya milele kwa watu maskini wa parokia hii katika Shrove-Jumanne, 200 ya Winchelsea billets, na mbili bushels ya ngano ya kuchemshwa katika mkate, Winchelsea billet kuwa mfupi, nene kipande cha kuni, jadi kusafirishwa kutoka bandari ya Winchelsea. "Mwaka 1837 ""galoni moja ya mkate"" na nusu ya kilo ya makaa ya mawe yaliwasilishwa kila Jumanne ya Shrove kwa watu 16 maskini. ""Mdhamini wa nne wa misaada, wa tarehe isiyojulikana, ulifanywa na Bwana Johnson ambaye alitoa, kutoka shamba lake huko Garling, jumla ya shilingi 6 8 ili kulipwa kila mwaka kwa walinzi wa kanisa la parokia, ambayo 6 ili kugawanywa na wao wakati wa Lent, kwa maskini zaidi ya parokia, na 8 ili kugawanywa kati yao." "Mwanzoni mwa mwaka wa 1624 Henry Sandford alianzisha shirika la misaada la ""Kikristo"" ambalo lilitoa mkate wa thamani ya senti sita kwa watu maskini wa parokia hiyo kila Jumapili au Jumapili, ili kugawanywa kwa hiari ya walinzi wa kanisa na wasimamizi wa maskini wa parokia hiyo, ambapo mahitaji yalikuwa makubwa zaidi. "" (H. Sandford, ""The Church of Christ,"" 1673; ""The Church of Christ,"" 1673; ""The Church of Christ,"" 1673; ""The Church of Christ,"" 1624)." . . Katika kuunganisha vijana maskini mafunzo kwa baadhi ya kazi ya baharini. mali inayomilikiwa na misaada alikuja ni pamoja na mengi ya Kanisa-square, White's mahali na Buller's yadi, pia inajulikana kwa majina ya Buller's Mahakama na Parish yadi. Uwanja wa Buller ulitumiwa na parokia kuwa makao ya maskini, na unaelezwa kwa undani zaidi hapa chini. "Mfano wa mchango wa kipekee wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango wa mchango.""" Kila mwaka, waangalizi wanne waliwekwa rasmi katika parokia ya St. John's, karibu na wakati wa Pasaka kila mwaka, washiriki wa parokia walikutana katika sakristi ili kutengeneza orodha ya wale waliotaka kuwa na cheo cha kuwa waangalizi kwa mwaka uliofuata. Orodha hiyo ilitolewa kwa Meya na Jurats huko Dover, ambao walikuwa Mahakimu wa Amani kwa Margate; ilikuwa ni desturi kwa Mahakimu wa Amani kuwachagua wale walioteuliwa na sakristi.Waziri wanne wapya wangechukua nafasi zao mnamo Machi 25 au 'ndani ya siku kumi na nne baada ya' Waziri walikuwa na kuwa 'wenye nyumba kubwa' wanaoishi katika parokia. Katika kipindi cha 1716-1729 wasimamizi walioteuliwa walikuwa, katika matukio kumi na sita, wakulima, na katika matukio matatu wakulima (wakulima wa kukodisha); katika matukio matano walikuwa mabaharia na katika matukio matano walikuwa malters (mtu kufanya malt kutumika katika uzalishaji wa bia); katika matukio mawili walikuwa butchers, na katika tukio moja kila mmoja wa hoyman, mfanyabiashara makaa ya mawe, cooper, carpenter na tailor. Watu watatu tu walihudumu mara mbili kama wasimamizi katika kipindi hiki, Robert Wells na Cornelius Tomlin, wote wakulima, na Peter Sackett, maltmaker. orodha hutumika kusisitiza umuhimu wa kilimo, utengenezaji wa bia na usafirishaji katika parokia kabla ya kuanza biashara ya likizo. Kila mmoja wa waangalizi wanne walioteuliwa kila mwaka alikuwa na daraka la moja ya makusanyo manne ya kodi yaliyofanywa katika mwaka huo, mnamo Oktoba, Januari, Mei na Julai. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya ""mfano wa ushuru wa kila pauni"" (Mfano wa Sherehe ya 17 Oct. 1716) iliyotolewa na ""Msimamizi wa Kanisa, Msimamizi wa Masikini na washiriki wengine wa parokia kwa ajili ya misaada ya maskini na kwa ajili ya kutoa hisa ili kuwaweka kufanya kazi na kwa ajili ya kuwashirikisha watoto maskini kuwa wanafunzi na kukadiria senti tisa kwa kila pauni ya kodi na kiasi hicho kwa kila hisa ya pauni 20 au uwezo ndani ya parokia." Robert Wells, Cornelius Tomlin, John Bennett na Richard Laming, wasimamizi wa sasa wa maskini wa parokia hiyo. Marejeo hapa kwa "kodi" inahusu kodi inayopatikana kwenye mali ikiwa ingekuwa kukodishwa. Kiwango cha kila robo mwaka cha senti tisa katika paundi iliongeza £ 59 16s 3d mnamo Oktoba 1716, £ 59 12s 3d mnamo Januari 1717, £ 59 16s 10d mnamo Mei 1717, na £ 59 1s 3d mnamo Julai 1717, jumla ya £ 238 6s 7d kwa kipindi cha miezi 12. Bila shaka nyakati nyingine kulikuwa na washiriki wa parokia ambao hawakuweza au hawakutaka kulipa. Katika karne ya kumi na sita, mambo kama hayo yaliletwa kwa Archdeacon wakati wa ziara zake za kukagua kanisa.23 Katika mwaka wa 1574, James Saull, William Reade na Richard Pym wote waliripotiwa kwa sababu 'hawakutaka kulipa sanduku la maskini' na hata mwishoni mwa mwaka wa 1598, wanaume wanane, William Fleet, Thomas Wood, William Turner, John Watson, Alexander Violet, John Hudson, Arnold Savage, na Ephraim Watson waliripotiwa kwa kukataa kulipa sanduku la maskini. "Kama sheria ya kwanza ya maskini ya kuondoa utegemezi wa michango ya hiari ilianzishwa mwaka 1574, marejeo ya ""sanduku la maskini"" ni ya kushangaza, hii inaonekana kama mfumo wa zamani wa hiari uliendelea." "Hata hivyo, katika 1615 ""mfumo wa kulipa kodi ya maskini"" (a sess, kifupi cha assess, kuwa neno lisilo la kawaida kwa kodi) ilionekana katika ripoti ya ziara, katika ripoti ya faini: ""William Saunders, tapper mkuu katika King's Arms, kwa kukataa kulipa kodi yake kwa maskini, kuwa kumi na mbili pence.""" Ikiwa mtu yeyote alikataa kulipa kiwango chao cha maskini, wasimamizi walitarajiwa kupata hati ya Dover dhidi ya mtu asiyelipa, akiwaruhusu kuchukua baadhi ya bidhaa zao na kuziuza ili kulipa deni. Kwa ujumla, wasimamizi walikuwa na wasiwasi wa kuchukua hatua kali kama hiyo dhidi ya jirani zao, na madeni yangekua, kwa hasara ya wazi ya walipa kodi wengine. 1680 - Thomas Markett alipewa shilingi 3 za senti 2 kwa kwenda Dover kwa ajili ya hati ya destress na ya ye warrant, na mtu mmoja akapewa shilingi 1 kwa kuandika barua na orodha ya wale waliokataa kulipa sesses zao.1681 - Thomas Pike alipata shilingi 4 za senti 6 kwa safari ya Dover na shilingi 6 kwa hati ya destress. Hata hivyo, kufikia mwaka wa 1695, hali ilikuwa imezidi kuwa mbaya sana hivi kwamba Meya wa Dover na Majaji walifanya kikao cha pekee cha mahakimu huko Margate, na matokeo yake yaliandikwa katika Kitabu cha Hesabu cha Wasimamizi: 26 Katika kikao kilichofanywa huko Margate Juni 25, 1695, mbele ya John Hollingberry, Esq, Meya, na Bwana Thomas Scott na Bwana Clement Buck, Majaji wa Dover. "Kwa kuwa malalamiko yamefanywa kwa Mahakama hii na wakuu wa parokia ya St. John kwamba wasimamizi wa zamani wa Wenye Umaskini wa parokia hiyo wamekuwa ""wasio makini sana katika kutekeleza kwa usahihi ofisi yao katika kutotekeleza maagizo ya kuchukua shida juu ya walemavu ambao hupuuza na kukataa kulipa makadirio yao kadhaa kwa misaada ya Wenye Umaskini wa parokia hiyo.""" Ili kuzuia misiba hii ya baadaye, inaamriwa kwamba kama Msimamizi au Msimamizi yeyote wa Wenye Umaskini wa Parokia hiyo atapuuza au kukataa kutekeleza hati yoyote kama hiyo. """Pesa zinazopaswa kusahauliwa au kukataliwa kukusanywa au kulipwa zitakubaliwa na kulipwa na Msimamizi au Msimamizi, ili kulipwa kwa bidhaa zake au zao, ikiwa hawatakubali au kulipa pesa hizo kwa usahihi.""" Haijulikani kama tisho hilo kwa wasimamizi lilikuwa na matokeo yaliyotarajiwa. "Hii ilisababisha moja ya yasiyo ya kawaida ya ""Masharti ya Masikini"" ya 1696-7 yenye kichwa ""Masharti ya Kuondoa Kasoro fulani katika Sheria za Msaada wa Masikini wa Ufalme huu"" na ilisema kwamba ""watu wanaopokea misaada, wake zao, watoto, na wengineo, wanapaswa kuvaa beji, herufi kubwa P, kwenye bega la mikono yao ya kulia, isipokuwa watoto wanaoishi nyumbani ili kuwatunza na kuhudumia Wazazi wasio na uwezo." Mtu yeyote maskini ambaye haitii sheria hiyo angeweza kufungwa gerezani na 'kuchezwa na kufungwa kazi ngumu' na Msimamizi yeyote wa Masikini ambaye angempa mtu maskini ambaye hakuwa amevaa beji angeweza kufungwa faini ya shilingi 20, nusu ya pesa hiyo ikienda kwa mtu aliyeripoti kosa hilo. "Hii ndiyo maana ya kifungu cha 1 cha Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria Sheria hiyo ilifutwa mwaka wa 1699 na Walinzi wa Masikini huko Margate waliitumia shilingi sita kutengeneza vitambulisho kwa ajili ya maskini, na baadhi ya wazo la jinsi wasimamizi waliitumia kiwango cha maskini linaweza kupatikana katika vitabu vya viwango, ambavyo vimehifadhiwa tangu mwaka wa 1678. Kwa mfano, katika robo ya kwanza ya mwaka wa kifedha kuanzia Pasaka 1679 wasimamizi waliunga mkono watu 17 kwa malipo ya kila wiki ya 1s 6d, 2s 6d au 3s kwa wiki, gharama ya jumla ya £ 21 6d kwa robo.28 Hii inaweza kulinganishwa na "malipo ya ziada" katika kipindi hicho hicho, kiasi cha £ 17 3s 1d, ikiwa ni pamoja na malipo ya nyumba ya watu 6 kwa jumla ya £ 12 6s, malipo ya 1s kwa Good Knock kwa kuangalia Mjane Ashendon katika ugonjwa, na malipo ya £ 7 6s kwa Rafflow. (Goodwife, kwa kawaida iliyofupishwa kama Goody au Good, ilikuwa aina ya heshima ya anwani kwa wanawake, kutumika sana kama <unk>Mrs<unk>, <unk>Miss<unk>, au <unk>Ms<unk> hutumiwa leo; sawa na mwanamume alikuwa Goodman.) Kufikia mwaka 1716 idadi ya watu waliopokea pensheni ilikuwa imepanda mara mbili hadi 36 katika robo ya kwanza ya mwaka, mara nyingine tena wengi wao walipewa wajane, kwa gharama ambayo pia iliongezeka mara mbili hadi £44.18 (pundo la Uingereza). "Hiyo ilijumuisha ""senti 1 kwa wiki kwa mjane Tomson, ambaye bado alikuwa akipokea pensheni mwaka 1718, ingawa wakati huo ilikuwa imeongezeka hadi shilingi 2 kwa wiki kwa mjane Horton na shilingi 2 kwa wiki kwa Elizabeth Roberts." Kwa kulinganisha majina hayo na yale yaliyo katika rekodi za mazishi ya parokia, inaonekana kwamba mjane Tomson alikuwa Ann Tomson, ambaye alikufa Juni 1718, mjane Horton alikuwa Mary Horton, ambaye alikufa majira ya baridi ya 1716-1717, Elizabeth Roberts alikuwa'msichana' ambaye alikufa mwaka 1718, na kwamba Stephen Pett alikuwa'mtu wa zamani' ambaye alikufa majira ya baridi ya 1717-18. Mifano hii inaonyesha kwamba pensheni zililipwa hasa kwa wazee walio peke yao mwishoni mwa maisha yao; pensheni inayofanana na mshahara wa mfanyakazi wa shamba inaonekana kuwa ya kutosha ingawa, bila shaka, inapaswa kukumbukwa kwamba mshahara wa mfanyakazi wa shamba ulikuwa wa kutosha tu kuendeleza maisha ya huzuni. Idadi ya watu waliopokea pensheni hizo ilikuwa ndogo sana. Wapewao hifadhi hiyo ni watu 17 waliofariki mwaka 1679 ambao ni asilimia 1 ya idadi ya watu katika parokia hiyo, na waliofariki mwaka 1716 ni watu 36 waliofariki mwaka huo ambao ni asilimia 1.5 ya idadi ya watu. Hii ni chini kwa kiwango cha kitaifa, ikidokeza ama kwamba wasimamizi walikuwa na upendeleo usio wa kawaida, ambayo inaonekana kuwa haiwezekani kutokana na kiwango cha pensheni za mtu binafsi, au kwamba kulikuwa na upungufu mdogo katika parokia. Mojawapo ya majukumu muhimu zaidi ya wasimamizi ilikuwa kuhakikisha kwamba maskini walikuwa na mahali pa kuishi. Wakati mwingine waliwalipia wapanda-miti maskini, na hivyo kuwawezesha kuendelea kuishi katika nyumba zao wenyewe; mara tu kodi ilipolipwa, hata wazee wangeweza kujitegemeza kwa kufanya kazi ya kawaida.3 Kwa mfano, mwaka wa 1728 wasimamizi waliwalipa £1 10 kwa kodi ya Widd Blackbourne na £1 16 kwa ile ya Widd Laming, na mwaka wa 1731 waliwalipa £10 kwa kodi ya Widd Hatcher. "Wakati wa mwaka wa 1669 Robert Pierce alipata senti 5 kwa mwaka mmoja wa kukodisha nyumba ya W. W. Overy, wakati wa mwaka wa 1716 W. Browne alipata senti 5 kwa mwaka mmoja wa kukodisha nyumba ya W. W. Overy, na mwaka wa 1683 W. Norwood alipata senti 2 kwa mwaka mmoja wa kukodisha nyumba ya W. W. Overy, na mwaka wa 1716 W. Norwood alipata senti 5 kwa mwaka mmoja wa kukodisha nyumba ya W. W. W. Overy.""" Ni wazi kwamba parokia ilikuwa na idadi ya mali ya aina hii, lakini akaunti za wasimamizi hutoa maelezo machache ya kukatisha tamaa, na ni nini maelezo kuna mara nyingi kuchanganyikiwa. Katika akaunti za mali ni inajulikana kama maskini nyumba, misaada nyumba, parokia nyumba, Pish nyumba, na misaada nyumba, wakati mwingine katika pekee lakini mara nyingi zaidi katika wingi. katika 1680 wasimamizi alitumia 1s juu ya'masikini nyumba' na £ 3 16s 'kwa ajili ya kazi kuhusu nyumba ya parokia.' katika 1681 walitumia £ 7 2s 6d 'kwa ajili ya kazi kufanyika kwa misaada nyumba', £ 1s 10d 'kwa ajili ya kazi kufanyika kuhusu misaada nyumba na £ 1s 5s 1d kwa ajili ya kazi kufanyika kuhusu maskini nyumba.' katika 1727 1679 Ni vigumu kusema kama majina haya tofauti yanalingana na majengo tofauti au kama baadhi ni majina tofauti tu kwa jengo moja. Tunaweza kuwa na uhakika kuhusu mojawapo ya nyumba hizo, nyumba ya Frog. Lewis, katika Historia yake ya Kisiwa cha Thanet iliyochapishwa mwaka 1736, aliorodhesha misaada ya misaada ya parokia (Mwongozo XVII).25 Hizi ni pamoja na "nyumba mbili ndogo" zinazomilikiwa na parokia "katika mahali paitwacho Frog-Hill". "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" ilibadilishwa na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church,"" na ""The Growing Necessity of the Church.""" Mwaka 1679 wakuu walipa dola 6 kwa ajili ya kurekebisha kisima cha Frog, na mwaka 1690 John Baker alipata dola 6 kwa ajili ya nyumba ya Frog. "Mwaka wa 1702 Matthew Constable alipata shilingi 4 kwa ajili ya paa la nyumba hiyo, mwaka wa 1706 alipata shilingi 3 kwa ajili ya paa la nyumba ya Frog, mwaka wa 1712 Nicholas Norwood alipata shilingi 2 kwa ajili ya paa la nyumba ya Frog, na mwaka wa 1734 William Castle alipata shilingi 15 kwa ajili ya paa la nyumba ya Frog, na kwa ajili ya fimbo na vipande, na siku tatu za kupanda, vipande vilivyotumiwa kuunganisha vipande vilivyoenea juu ya paa ili kuishikamata.""" Nyumba ya Frog ilikuwa na madirisha sahihi; mnamo 1706 John Ovenden alipata 3s 6d 'katika Nyumba ya Frog kwa Glaseing'. "Mfano wa kutoa misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada ya misaada. """ "Jengo hilo lilijengwa katika eneo la ""Buller's Square"" au ""Parichi Yard"" na lilipelekwa kwa maafisa wa parokia ya St. John's mnamo 1775 ambao waliwalipa wakulima kwa ajili ya mali hizo na kuzitumia kuwa makao ya maskini." "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika taarifa ya kwanza ya Parish Yard katika akaunti ya wasimamizi ni katika 1735 ambapo kuna rekodi ya malipo ya £ 10 kwa Bwana Robert Brook kwa ajili ya kukodisha nyumba katika Parish Yard, zawadi ya Bwana Buller, ambayo Parish huajiri ya Wadhamini. ""Robert Brook alikuwa baharia na mdhamini wa misaada ya Buller. ""Kama vile nyumba za Parish Yard ziliendeshwa ni wazi katika ripoti ya mkutano wa wanachama wa Margate Philanthropic Institution katika 1847 ambapo wao kujadili uwezekano wa kujenga nyumba za misaada bila misaada yoyote." "Ilikuwa imebainishwa kwamba kwa ""msaada ambao kwa kawaida hupewa kwa wazee na parokia, na msaada ambao watoto wao au marafiki wanaweza kuwapa, ilitarajiwa kwamba wangeweza kuishi, kama watu wengi wanavyofanya sasa katika uwanja wa parokia, ambao wanafurahia faida ya kutolipa kodi ya chumba chao.""" . . katika uwanja wa Parokia. . .walikuwa wazuri sana. . . Lakini walikuwa hawana vipawa, na wanawake hao maskini, ingawa walifurahi sana kuingia katika nyumba hizo, walilazimika kutegemea 1 shillingi 6 kwa wiki iliyoruhusiwa na parokia. Ramani ya John Prydon ya Margate, 1781 Kutoka John Pridden, <unk>Kusanya kwa ajili ya Historia ya Kisiwa cha Thanet<unk>. Picha ya 27. Picha ya nyumba ya maskini huko Margate, Oktoba 14, 1781 Kutoka John Pridden, <unk>Kusanya kwa ajili ya Historia ya Kisiwa cha Thanet<unk>. Picha ya 28. Picha ya ramani ya 1717 ya John Harris ya Thanet, inayoonyesha jengo lisilo na lebo, labda nyumba ya Masikini. Ramani ya Joseph Hall ya Margate iliyochapishwa mnamo 1777 inaonyesha 'Nyumba ya Masikini' iliyoko mashariki mwa kanisa la parokia, kwenye barabara inayolingana na barabara inayojulikana baadaye kama Prospect Place na kisha Victoria Road.33 Ramani ya mchoro iliyochorwa kwa mkono na John Pridden inayoanzia mwaka wa 1781 pia inaonyesha 'Nyumba ya Masikini' na bustani yake kwenye Prospect Place (Sura 26) na Pridden hutoa mchoro wa Nyumba ya Masikini, ikionyesha kuwa ni jengo kubwa la ghorofa mbili (Sura 27). Ramani ya Edmund ya Margate ya 1821 inaonyesha nyumba ya kazi ya Margate kwenye Prospect Place, na William Rowe anaandika kwamba nyumba ya kazi ya Margate ilijengwa mnamo 1769,35 ili nyumba ya John Prydon ya 'Wajana' iwe, kwa kweli, nyumba ya kazi kwa jina lingine. Kwa kushangaza, ramani ya John Harris ya Thanet iliyochapishwa mnamo 1717 inaonyesha jengo lisilo na lebo upande wa kulia wa kanisa la parokia (Sura ya 28), jengo la umuhimu wa kutosha katika parokia ili kuhalalisha kuingizwa kwenye ramani. "Hatujui ni nini jengo hili, wala eneo lake halisi, lakini uwezekano mmoja, kutokana na nafasi yake kwenye ramani ya Harris, ni kwamba ilikuwa nyumba ya mapema ya maskini, ama kujengwa karibu na kanisa, kwa mfano kwenye ardhi inayomilikiwa na Buller's Charity, au kwenye tovuti ambapo Workhouse ilijengwa mnamo 1769.""" "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha kwanza cha ""The Poorhouse"" cha 1679 na ""The Book of the Poorhouse"" cha 1689 na ""The Book of the Poorhouse"" cha 1689 na ""The Book of the Poorhouse"" cha 1680 na ""The Book of the Poorhouse"" ya 1680 na ""The Book of the Poorhouse"" ya 1680." Kwa sababu ya gharama kubwa za nyumba hizo, inaonekana kwamba watu wengi walianza kufanya kazi ya kuwahamisha maskini huko huko. "Mwaka 1681 Waangalizi walimlipa Thomas Underdown £6 kwa kodi ya nyumba za Poor's, kisha Waangalizi walimlipa Thomas Underdown £6 kwa kodi ya nyumba za Charity kwa ajili ya kodi ya siku ya Lady, na mwaka 1683 walipa £6 kwa Feoffees kwa ajili ya kodi ya mwaka mmoja kwa ajili ya nyumba za Almshouses, na baadaye mwaka 1683 walipa £3 kwa Thomas Underdown kwa ajili ya kodi ya nusu ya mwaka kwa ajili ya nyumba za Poor's, na mwaka 1688 walipa £6 kwa Thomas Underdown, mmoja wa Waangalizi wa Charity kwa ajili ya kodi ya mwaka mmoja kwa ajili ya nyumba za Poor's.""" Thomas Underdown alikuwa mmoja wa familia muhimu ya Margate, wakati mmoja alikuwa mmiliki wa Dane Court.37 Thomas Underdown mwenyewe alikuwa maltster, na, wakati mbalimbali, Churchwarden, Overseer, na Pier Warden;2638 ya uwezekano zaidi ya misaada ya ndani ya kumiliki mali kama hii ilikuwa Buller's Charity. "Hii ingekuwa sawa na kuingia katika akaunti za wasimamizi wa 1737 kurekodi malipo ya £ 6 kwa Bwana Grainger kwa kuchukua Edward Whitehead Apprentice baharini, kuwa Zawadi ya Bwana Bullard [Buller] wa Nyumba za Masikini. ""Ni wazi zaidi kama au si ""Pish-nyumba"" (Pish kuwa kifupi cha kawaida kwa Parish) zilizotajwa katika akaunti za wasimamizi walikuwa bado jina jingine kwa ajili ya Nyumba ya Masikini, au ilikuwa seti tofauti ya majengo." "Hakuna kumbukumbu ya kukodisha kulipwa kwa Thomas Underdown kwa ajili ya nyumba ya Pish, ingawa katika 1712 ilirekodiwa kwamba wasimamizi walipa £ 10 ""kwa Feoffee kukodisha nyumba ya Pish.""" Mwaka 1680 John Turner alipata £3 16 kwa ajili ya kazi na bodi kuhusu Pish-nyumba na mwaka 1682 wasimamizi walipa £4 2s 6d kwa Dudley Diggs kwa ajili ya 'Tiles kwa ajili ya Pish-nyumba'. "Hata kufikia mwaka wa 1727 maelezo mengi katika masimulizi ya wasimamizi kuhusu nyumba za maskini yalikuwa katika idadi ya watu wengi, lakini baada ya tarehe hiyo mengi yalikuwa katika idadi ya watu wachache.27 Kwa kudhani kwamba ""nyumba za maskini,"" ""nyumba za misaada,"" na ""nyumba za misaada"" zote kwa kweli zinarejelea nyumba katika uwanja wa Buller, inaonekana kwamba nyumba mpya, iliyojengwa kwa ajili ya maskini, ingeweza kujengwa wakati huo." Katika akaunti za wasimamizi, malipo ya 3s 6d kwa Goodman Coulthorpe kwa kazi katika nyumba za maskini na nyumba za misaada na malipo ya 8s 1d kwa Bwana Sandwell kwa kila muswada wa nyumba ya maskini na nyumba za misaada, zote mbili zinasema kuwa nyumba ya maskini ni kitu tofauti na nyumba za misaada. Katika akaunti za mwaka 1728 kuna kumbukumbu ya malipo ya £ 3 kwa Mr Petken kwa ajili ya nusu ya mwaka kodi kwa ajili ya nyumba ya [ maskini ] na mwaka 1731 malipo zaidi ya £ 6 kwa Petken kwa ajili ya mwaka mmoja kodi ya nyumba maskini. "Katika mkataba wa 1738 kati ya George Upton wa Canterbury na William Petten, mtengenezaji wa bia wa Margate, ""mashamba yote ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini"" na ""mashamba ya maskini.""" . . ambayo hivi karibuni ilikopwa kwa Msimamizi wa Kanisa na Msimamizi wa Masikini. . . kwa matumizi ya maskini. . . Kwa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka wa mwaka. "Neno ""Workhouse"" lilitumiwa kwa mara ya kwanza katika rekodi za mwaka wa 1727 na ""Pari spent at parish meetings and business concerning the Workhouse"" (kwa fedha zilizotumika katika kukusanya mali za maskini) na ""Pari spent at taking an account of the poor's goods"" (kwa fedha zilizotumika katika kukusanya mali za maskini) na ""Pari spent at parish meetings and business concerning the Workhouse"" (kwa fedha zilizotumika katika mikutano ya Parokia)." Sheria ya Knatchbull, iliyobadilisha sheria zinazohusiana na makazi, kazi, na misaada ya maskini, ilipitishwa mnamo 1723 na'mtihani wa nyumba ya kazi' ambao mnyonge angepokea misaada ya maskini ikiwa angekubaliwa katika nyumba ya kazi. Hata hivyo, ni shaka kama Margate alikuwa na "sawa" Workhouse mpaka tarehe sana baadaye. Mwaka 1777 serikali ilifanya uchunguzi wa nyumba za watu maskini nchini humo na kurekodi zaidi ya 1,800, ikiwa ni pamoja na nyumba za watu maskini huko Birchington na Ramsgate, lakini ripoti hiyo haijumuisha ripoti yoyote ya nyumba ya watu maskini huko Margate.42 Kuweka habari hizi zote pamoja inaonekana kuwa kuanzia mwaka wa 1727 wasimamizi walianza kuendesha nyumba mpya ya watu maskini huko Margate kwa njia ya kiutawala, lakini, kwa kutotaka kulipa gharama ya kukodisha majengo mapya, walifanya nyumba hiyo itumikie maskini. Vitu kadhaa vya gharama vilivyoorodheshwa katika akaunti za wasimamizi kwa mwaka wa 1727 vinaonyesha kwamba makazi kwa ajili ya maskini yalipanuliwa wakati huu. Mwaka 1727 Edward Constant na Gabriel Wilds walipewa £119 kwa ajili ya kitambaa na kitanda, £15 kwa ajili ya vitambaa na vitambaa, £15 kwa ajili ya vitambaa vitatu, na £15 kwa ajili ya vitambaa na vitambaa kwa ajili ya maskini. Mwaka 1727 Richard Soley, fundi wa mbao, alipokea £5 13s 2d (kama ilivyotolewa kwenye muswada) na ingawa hakuna maelezo yoyote yaliyotolewa, inawezekana kwamba hii pia ilifanana na fanicha au kazi iliyofanywa katika Poorhouse. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha ""Parichi Register"" cha mwaka wa 1728: ""Katika siku ya Jumapili, Agosti 25, 1728 John Wood, mwenye umri wa miaka 95 aliyezaliwa Graveney, karibu na Faversham, alijitundika kwa hofu ya kuuawa na kuingizwa katika nyumba ya kazi." "Mwanamke huyo alikuwa amepatwa na ugonjwa wa upofu na mkewe aliporudi nyumbani alimwona amekufa akiwa amenyonga magoti yake.Mwanafunzi wa kwanza wa nyumba ya maskini alikuwa Robert Pearse ambaye alipata mshahara wa £4m mwaka wa 1728 kama ""mshahara wake wa nusu ya mwaka kwa ajili ya nyumba ya maskini.""" Mshahara mdogo na ukweli kwamba alitajwa kama "Goodman Overy" katika akaunti za wasimamizi, badala ya "Bwana Overy", unaonyesha kwamba nafasi ya bwana haikuwa na heshima kubwa. "Mwaka 1736 Robert Pearse [au Pearse] alirudi kama bwana wa nyumba ya maskini, labda kwa mshahara bora kidogo kama vile wakurugenzi wa akaunti wanavyorekodi: ""Kwa Rob.""" Peerse kwa ajili ya 1⁄4 miaka ya mshahara na mahitaji mengine kwa ajili ya maskini-nyumba - 13s 6d <unk>. "Mwaka 1728 John Pummitt, mkulima mdogo, alipokea £97.9 kwa ajili ya ""bushels mbili na galoni moja ya maharagwe nyeupe,"" William Small alipokea £4.119.9 kwa ajili ya ""mlo, mkate na unga,"" William Jarvis, mkulima, alipokea £2.126.6 kwa ajili ya ""bushels 14 za maharagwe kwa ajili ya nyumba maskini,"" Matthias Smith, mkataji, alipokea £6.45 kwa ajili ya ""mnyama wa ng'ombe kwa ajili ya maskini,"" na Daniel Pamfleet, mkulima, alipokea £18.99.9 kwa ajili ya ""ji ya London.""" "Kulipwa pia kwa makaa ya mawe, £ 4 4s kulipwa kwa Peter Wootton, mfanyabiashara wa makaa ya mawe, ""kwa makaa ya mawe kwa maskini"" na 12s kulipwa kwa John Brown, mkulima mdogo huko North Foreland, ""kwa usafirishaji wa chaldrons nane za makaa ya mawe"" - labda kutoka bandari hadi Poorhouse. ""wakulima, kuwa na farasi na magari, mara nyingi walipwa kwa kusafirisha bidhaa kuzunguka parokia." Pia katika 1728 wasimamizi alitoa 4s 4d kwa maskini watu katika nyumba ya kuweka Krismasi. "Malipo mengi zaidi kwa ajili ya chakula ni pamoja na katika miaka ya baadaye, ikiwa ni pamoja na malipo kwa ajili ya nguruwe, ng'ombe, kondoo, ""neats"" [ng'ombe] miguu na tripes, chumvi-ng'ombe, herring, chumvi-samaki, maharagwe, maharagwe, apples, mafuta, malt, chachu, maziwa, mkate, mengi ya jibini, na ""mvinyo kwa ajili ya maskini wakati wa ugonjwa.""" Pia kuna ununuzi wa mara kwa mara wa bidhaa za duka, ikiwa ni pamoja na siagi, mishumaa, sabuni, sukari, zabibu, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani, kitani. Mwaka 1731 wakuu walianza kulipia shule kwa ajili ya watoto katika Poorhouse, awali kwa ajili ya mvulana mmoja ambaye walipa John Prince 3s 11d kwa ajili ya shule katika mwaka na kwa ajili ya ambaye walinunua primer kwa 1s 3d. "Hata hivyo, katika akaunti za mwaka 1731 kuna malipo ya ""kufundishwa katika nyumba ya maskini"" na ""kufundishwa kwa mvulana katika nyumba ya kazi,"" na matumizi ya ""nyumba ya maskini"" na ""nyumba ya kazi"" pia yanaonyesha kwamba hizi zilikuwa jengo moja." Mwaka 1732 wakuu wa shule walimpa John Prince 2s, kwa kuwa sasa alikuwa 'katika uhitaji'; kumwajiri kama mwalimu wa shule ilikuwa njia ya kumpa mtu maskini msaada wa kifedha unaohitajika. Baadaye katika 1732 wasimamizi walimlipa Widd Norwood 7s 8d kwa ajili ya 'Francis Baker's schooling' na Widd Powell 6s 4d kwa ajili ya'schooling kwa ajili ya watoto maskini'. Mwaka 1733 malipo ya 6s 3d yalifanywa kwa mjane Powell na mjane Norwood kwa ajili ya shule kwa ajili ya watoto maskini. "Mfano wa malipo ya kwanza ni ""senti 1 kwa Sampson kwa ajili ya wiki 6 za shule kwa watoto watatu maskini kutoka nyumba ya maskini kwa 3 kwa wiki.""" Sheria za awali za maskini zilisisitiza kwamba pamoja na makazi, wasimamizi walitarajiwa kuwapa kazi maskini wenye uwezo wa mwili kwa kuwapa'mali ya kufaa ya kitani, hemp, sufu, nyuzi, chuma, au bidhaa nyingine muhimu au vitu vingine'.6 Kuna ushahidi mdogo katika akaunti za wasimamizi kwamba wazo hili lilifuatwa kwa nguvu kabisa huko Margate. Mwaka 1666 wakuu walimpa Mjane Bell shilingi 9 za kununua uzi kwa ajili ya msichana aliyemlea, na mwaka 1688 wakuu walimpa Richard Laming shilingi 8 za kutengeneza nguo na za kuvalia nguo, na shilingi 1 kwa kutengeneza mifuko, na shilingi 8 kwa kutengeneza nguo na mifuko, na shilingi 2 kwa kutengeneza mizigo. Hii inaonyesha muundo wa kitaifa, na wasimamizi wasio na mshahara hawataki kutumia wakati unaohitajika kusimamia kazi ya idadi kubwa ya maskini waliotawanyika katika parokia. Kwa mujibu wa taarifa za wasimamizi, St. John's Poorhouse ilikuwa na makazi ya watu maskini tangu mwaka wa 1727. Katika mwaka wa 1730, wasimamizi walipokea shilingi saba kwa kazi ya kufanya katika nyumba ya maskini, shilingi tatu kwa kufuma shilingi sita, na shilingi moja na nusu kutoka kwa Thomas Cramp, mtengenezaji wa viatu, kwa kazi, labda kwa viatu vilivyotengenezwa katika nyumba ya maskini. "1732 1 shillingi ililipwa ""The Poor for Spinning"" na 1733 2 shillingi 8d ililipwa ""For 1 lb of the best wool to spin in the Poor-house"" na 10d ililipwa ""The poor in the house for encouragement for spinning.""" Mwaka 1733 maskini katika nyumba hiyo walipewa shilingi moja, kulingana na thamani ya kazi waliyokuwa wamefanya, kwa kiwango cha shilingi mbili, na wasimamizi waliwekeza shilingi sita katika kununua 'vitambaa, mkanda na sindano' na shilingi moja kwa nusu paundi ya sufu kwa ajili ya nyumba hiyo. Wakati mwingine wasimamizi waliwapa wanaume na wanawake pesa ili waweze kuendelea na biashara zao. Mwaka 1679 wakuu walipa 1 shillingi kwa kurekebisha Goodwife Ashendon's Wheel na kwa kumfanya Richard Knock kuwa Rake. Mwaka 1730 John Rye, mvuvi maskini, alipewa shilingi 1 kununua 'whiting line' na mwaka 1738 mke wa Goodman Shoemaker alipewa shilingi 2 na senti 6 kwa ajili ya gurudumu la kuteleza. Mwaka 1700, Robert Peirce alipewa £1 kwa ajili ya kumpa boti, na mwaka 1719 James Mount alipewa £12 kwa ajili ya kurekebisha boti, ingawa katika kesi hii ilibainishwa kwamba malipo yalifanywa kwa idhini ya parokia. Kwa mfano, mwaka 1716 Nicholas Norwood, mfanyakazi wa shamba, alipata mshahara wa shilingi 16 kwa kazi yake katika nyumba za parokia, ingawa mwaka uliofuata ilibidi wasimamizi wampatie mkewe shilingi 2. Wanawake pia waliajiriwa na wasimamizi, lakini hasa katika kazi za utunzaji kama vile kuwatunza wagonjwa na 'kuweka nje' au kuosha wafu. Mwaka 1666 Bibi Bing alipata shilingi 1 kwa kumtunza na kumtunza Bibi Witherden, Bibi Poole alipata shilingi 6 kwa kumtunza Susan Rendell na mtoto wake wakati alipokuwa na ugonjwa wa kipindupindu, kwa wiki moja, na Bibi Prickett alipata shilingi 1 kwa kumtunza Susan Rendell na mtoto wake nyumbani kwake kwa wiki moja. Mwaka 1727 mke wa mchongaji Mathias Mummery alipata shilingi 3 kwa kumtunza mtu mmoja, W. Everitt alipata shilingi 1 kwa kumnywesha mgonjwa, na wake za Robert Pearse na Richard Blackburn walipata shilingi 1 kwa kumtunza mke Hart. Katika mwaka wa 1738, Goodman Housden alipata mshahara wa shilingi nne kwa kuosha nguo za Gabriel Foard, ambaye kwa wakati huo alikuwa na umri mdogo. Malipo yalifanywa pia kwa ajili ya kutunza watoto. Mwaka 1679 Good Raff alipata shilingi 7 kwa kumtunza mtoto wa Marlowe na mwaka 1716 John Salter alipata shilingi 12 kwa kumtunza msichana wa parokia kwa robo mwaka. Katika mwaka wa 1735, Goodman Kiddal alipokea shilingi 13 kwa wiki 11 za kulea mtoto wa Webbster na mahitaji mengine, na mwaka wa 1737, John Neal, mfumaji, alipokea shilingi 12 kwa kutoa nguo na chakula kwa mtoto wa Hedgecock. Pesa ndogo-ndogo zingeweza pia kupatikana kwa kusaidia kuzuia wadudu. "Kwa mujibu wa sheria ya mwaka 1532 ya kuharibu ""mbuzi, kunguru na korongo"" na sheria ya 1546 ya kuhifadhi nafaka, wakulima walipaswa kulipa zawadi kwa ajili ya wadudu waliouawa katika parokia, fedha zilizotoka kwa kodi ya kanisa; wadudu waliofunikwa na sheria hizo ni pamoja na mbweha, nguruwe, magogo, mbweha, mbweha, na hedgehogs, hedgehogs wakati huo kuaminiwa kunyonya kutoka teats ya ng'ombe usiku kama wao kuweka katika mashamba ya maziwa." Mwaka 1706 walinzi wa kanisa la St. John's walimlipa Thomas Bing senti tano kwa vichwa vya vipepeo 31⁄2 na Edward Flagg senti moja kwa vichwa vitatu vya hedgehog na Matthew Constable senti nne kwa vichwa kimoja cha hedgehog. Hata hivyo, baadhi ya watu wazima pia walipokea malipo; katika 1713 <unk>Mr Cowells Mtumishi<unk> alipokea 11d <unk>kwa 51⁄2 dozen ya vichwa<unk>, <unk>Mr Grant<unk> alipokea 3d <unk>kwa 11⁄2 dozen ya vichwa<unk> na Capt. Mchungaji wa Omer alipokea 4d kwa hedgehog na 'Roger Tombe Mchungaji' pia alipokea 4d kwa hedgehog, hii pengine kuwa Capt. Mchungaji wa Omer tena. "Malipo ya ""vichwa vya korongo, vipepeo na hedgehogs"" yaliendelea angalau hadi mwaka 1715, wakati ambapo £ 19s ililipwa kwa ""vichwa mbalimbali vya korongo na wadudu wengine kwa mwaka mzima.""" Wengi wa maskini, badala ya msaada wa muda mrefu, walihitaji msaada kwa muda mfupi tu, kwa sababu ya ugonjwa, ukosefu wa kazi, au msiba mwingine. Msaada huo ulitolewa ama kwa namna ya malipo ya fedha au kama misaada ya asili, ambayo inaweza kujumuisha nguo, viatu, mafuta, kodi, chakula au huduma za matibabu. "Mfano wa malipo ya fedha ni ""mwanamke maskini katika haja na watoto wawili kuwa wamepoteza wote walikuwa na moto"" ambaye alipewa 2s katika 1679, 1s alipewa katika 1712 ""kwa maskini kwamba alikuwa na hasara kubwa,"" na 1s alipewa katika 1680 kwa George Brown ""kuwa maskini""; waangalizi kisha kuhakikisha kwamba George Brown haja ya msaada zaidi kutoka parokia kwa kulipa 1s 6d kuhamiria Canterbury." Mwaka 1685 watu 60 walipokea misaada ya fedha katika parokia, kiasi cha fedha kutoka 6p hadi 2s 6p, kwa gharama ya jumla ya £ 14. Mwaka 1689 mjane Williams alipewa 2d <unk> kwa ajili ya chombo cha chumba<unk>. "Mwanamke huyo, J.J. Jarman, alipokea senti 1 kwa sababu ya ugonjwa wake, na W.W.Wellen na W.Grainger walipata senti 2 kwa sababu ya ugonjwa wao, Thomas Hewes na W.Horton walipata senti 1 na 2 kwa sababu ya uhitaji wao, na Mjane May alipokea senti 3 kwa sababu ya uhitaji wake, na Thomas Whithead alipokea senti 5 kwa sababu ya uhitaji wake.""" "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika sura ya kwanza, ""mwenyeji wa mji"" walipewa pesa za ziada, ""mwenyeji wa mji"" walipewa pesa za ziada, ""mwenyeji wa mji"" walipewa pesa za ziada, ""mwenyeji wa mji"" walipewa pesa za ziada, na ""mwenyeji wa mji"" walipewa pesa za ziada." Msaada wa mara kwa mara ulitolewa kwa kawaida kwa namna ya vitu badala ya pesa; malipo ya vitu yalisaidia, bila shaka, kuimarisha uchumi wa mahali hapo, kwa kuwa wasimamizi walinunua bidhaa na huduma kutoka kwa wamiliki wa maduka na wafanyabiashara wa mahali hapo. Aina mbalimbali za bidhaa na huduma zilizotolewa zinaonyesha kwamba wasimamizi walikuwa na ujuzi mzuri wa mahitaji ya maskini katika parokia. """Wakati mwingine vitu vya nguo vilitambuliwa katika akaunti na wakati mwingine malipo yalifanywa ili kufunika bili za kila robo mwaka zilizowasilishwa na wafanyabiashara." Mnamo mwaka 1666, Matthew Toarth alipata shilingi 2 kwa jozi tatu za viatu na shilingi 2 kwa jozi moja ya viatu kwa ajili ya msichana ambaye W. Bell anae, na shilingi moja kwa ajili ya mvulana ambaye Peter Mosse anae, na Thomas Emptedge alipata shilingi 6 kwa viatu kwa ajili ya Tho. Tadds Girle, na Jeremy Culmers Girle, na kwa ajili ya kurekebisha viatu. "Mwaka 1666 John Laming alipata mshahara wa shilingi 8 kwa ajili ya nguo za mvulana aliyemtunza, Stephen Cock alipata mshahara wa shilingi 2 kwa ajili ya ""Wastcoat"" kwa ajili ya ""Girl at Adrian Moise"" na ""Clasp"" na ""Wastcoat"" kwa ajili ya ""Thomas Tadd"" na ""Shirts"" kwa ajili ya ""George Grant"" na ""Shirts"" kwa ajili ya ""Edward Ford"" na ""Shirts"" kwa ajili ya ""Edward Ford.""" "Kama ""mshindi"" wa ""Briches"" kwa Norwood mzee, ""mshindi"" wa ""Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six Six "Kama vile ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts"" na ""Shirts.""" "Mwaka 1717 Robert Gore alipata mshahara wa shilingi 7 na shilingi 11 kwa viatu na Franklin Goldsmith, mtengenezaji wa nguo na nguo, alipata mshahara wa shilingi 4 na shilingi 4 kwa ""viatu na suruali kwa mvulana wa Wallace.""" Mwaka 1727 shati tatu zilinunuliwa kwa ajili ya mtoto mchanga wa Thorndon kwa 1 sh 6d na mke wa Richard Dixon alipata 1 sh 3d kwa kutengeneza mavazi kwa ajili ya wasichana wa Thorndon na jozi mbili za suruali za ngozi zilinunuliwa kwa ajili ya wavulana maskini kwa 6s. Mwaka 1728 John Brooman alipata shilingi 12 kwa nguo na viatu, na Matthias Mummery alipata shilingi 8 kwa viatu. Katika 1735 3s ilikuwa kulipwa <unk>kwa Wid Emtage mabadiliko katika haja<unk>. Katika mwaka wa 1735, binti Thomas Smith alipokea nguo za kila siku kwa gharama ya shilingi 1 na kofia mbili kwa gharama ya shilingi 1 na John Sanders alipokea shati kwa gharama ya shilingi 3 na kofia ya kila siku kwa gharama ya shilingi 3 na kofia ya kila siku kwa gharama ya shilingi 1 na kofia ya kila siku kwa gharama ya shilingi 1. Mwaka 1728 wakuu wa nyumba hiyo walitumia shilingi 6 na senti 6 ili kununua nguo za Widd Reynolds kutoka kwa mkopeshaji. Wasimamizi walikuwa na akaunti na wamiliki kadhaa wa maduka katika mji. Mwaka 1717 wakuu wa kanisa walimlipa John Brooman, mfinyanzi, pauni £3 8s 9d. 1728 wakuu walipiga bili ya £117 kutoka kwa Solomon Holborn, mtengenezaji wa nguo na nguo, na pia bili ya £19 kutoka kwa Thomas Cramp, na ya £108 na nusu kutoka kwa Robert Gore, zote mbili kwa ajili ya viatu kwa ajili ya maskini. Mwaka 1729 William Cobb, mfanyabiashara wa viatu, mfanyabiashara wa maduka, na baba ya Francis Cobb I, alipata £13 5d kwa viatu kwa ajili ya maskini, na Beale, mtengenezaji wa nguo na draper, alipata £1 4d kwa ajili ya glavu na vitu vingine. Mwaka 1731 Beale alipata dola 7 kwa ajili ya jozi ya glavu kwa ajili ya Peirce Lawrence. Mwaka 1733 John Comet alipokea £3 12s na nusu d kama kwa muswada kwa ajili ya nguo kwa ajili ya maskini. Mwaka 1738 Stephen Bennett, mfanyabiashara wa nguo, alipata pesa za Uingereza £176 kwa ajili ya nguo za maskini. Kuna mifano michache tu ya ununuzi wa chakula kwa ajili ya maskini binafsi. Mwaka 1719 Wid Bubb, ambaye huenda alikuwa msimamizi wa nyumba ya wageni, alipata shilingi 1 kwa ajili ya chakula na kinywaji kwa ajili ya mwanamke maskini, na mwaka 1733 shilingi 8 zilitumiwa kulipia mkate kwa ajili ya Catherine Pattison wakati wa ugonjwa wake. Kama tulivyoona, wasimamizi walianza kutumia kiasi kikubwa cha pesa kwa ajili ya chakula cha maskini baada ya mwaka wa 1727, wakati nyumba hiyo ilipozinduliwa ili kuwa kama nyumba ya wafanyakazi. Yaelekea kwamba maskini walioishi katika nyumba zao wenyewe walitarajiwa kulipa chakula chao kwa pesa zilizotolewa na wasimamizi, ikiwa hawangeweza kukizalisha wenyewe. Idadi ya ununuzi wa makaa ya mawe pia ni kumbukumbu katika akaunti. Peter Wootton, mfanyabiashara wa makaa ya mawe, alipata £3 13s 6d kwa makaa ya mawe mwaka 1717 na £2 6s mwaka 1719 kwa chaldren mbili za makaa ya mawe. Mwaka 1718 William Richardson alipata £4 16s 6d kwa chalders nne na shaba tano za makaa ya mawe na kwa ajili ya usafiri kwa ajili ya maskini. "Malipo mengine ya makaa ya mawe yalifanywa kwa John Lister, mfanyabiashara wa makaa ya mawe na mkurugenzi wa kanisa, kwa Stephen Baker, mfanyabiashara wa makaa ya mawe na baharia, na kwa Nicholas Wellen, mfanyabiashara mwingine wa makaa ya mawe.""" Inawezekana kwamba makaa mengi ya mawe hayo yalipelekwa kwenye vyumba vya kulia chakula vya maskini, lakini baadhi ya makaa hayo yangeweza kutumiwa kuwasaidia maskini walioishi katika nyumba zao wenyewe. Kufikia mwaka wa 1739 wasimamizi walikuwa wameamua kwamba makaa ya mawe, isipokuwa katika visa maalum, yangetolewa tu kwa nyumba maskini, wakati ambapo kwa miaka kadhaa iliyopita idadi kubwa ya makaa ya mawe yametolewa na maafisa kwa maskini wa parokia. "Imeamriwa katika utaratibu huu wa sasa wa Vestry, ""Hakuna makaa ya mawe yatakayowekwa au kutupwa kwa matumizi ya maskini, lakini tu kwa nyumba ya maskini.""" Isipokuwa kwa watu kama vile itakayo kukubaliwa juu, kwa amri katika Vestry kwa kusudi hilo. 14 Mei 1739: Kutenganishwa kwa maskini katika wale waliopokea malipo ya kawaida na wale waliopokea misaada ya mara kwa mara hakukuwa na kubadilika; mtu anayeanza na misaada ya mara kwa mara mara mara nyingi angemalizia kutegemea kabisa parokia. Mfano mmoja unatolewa na mke wa Paul Hart. Paul Hart alikuwa mwenye nyumba ya wageni na mmoja wa wasimamizi wa posta wa mapema wa Margate, lakini kufikia 1716 familia ilikuwa imeshuka katika nyakati ngumu, ikipokea £ 3 15s katika misaada kutoka kwa parokia. Mwaka 1726 mkewe, mke wa Paul Hart, alipata mshahara wa shilingi 2 na mshahara wa shilingi 4 kwa kila wiki kwa sababu ya kuwa na uhitaji, lakini baadaye mwaka huo alipata mshahara wa wiki 29 kwa kila wiki. Kwa kupendeza, katika akaunti za wasimamizi wakati mwingine anatajwa kama Bi Hart, jina la cheo <unk>Mrs<unk> linaonyesha kwamba alikuwa na msimamo fulani katika parokia licha ya umaskini wake. Mwaka 1727 alipokea malipo ya shilingi 2 6d, tena akiwa 'katika uhitaji', ikifuatiwa na vipindi vya wiki 14 na wiki 10 kwa shilingi 1 6d kwa wiki; pia alipewa shilingi 1 8d kwa'sawa ya chuma', shilingi 3 kwa 'kitambaa na zulia', na shilingi 10 6d'mara kadhaa katika ugonjwa'. Baada ya miaka miwili, mke wa Pearse na mke wa Richard Blackburn walipewa shilingi moja kwa kila mmoja kwa kumtunza, na baada ya hapo, mwanamke wa Blackburn alilelewa kwa wiki kumi na tano. Wakati huo, mjane Hart alipokea pensheni ya shilingi 2 kwa wiki kwa wiki 12, na shilingi 1 kwa wiki kwa wiki tatu zilizobaki. "Mwanamke huyo alikufa baadaye mwaka wa 1727 na akaunti za wasimamizi zinasema kwamba 2 shillingi 6 zililipwa kwa ""kuzikia Widd Hart"" na 9 shillingi 6 kwa ""kuweka mbele, kumchukua kanisani, bia, na malipo mengine.""" Mfano wa mjane Hart unaonyesha kwamba waangalizi walikuwa tayari kulipa kiasi kikubwa cha pesa ili kuhakikisha kwamba maskini walipata mazishi yenye kufaa. "Hii ilikuwa kawaida katika parokia nyingi, wakuu wakijaribu kuhakikisha kwamba mazishi ya maskini hayakuwakilisha ""kutokuwa na thamani, kushindwa, na kutokujulikana, lakini utambuzi wa kijamii na heshima ya kibinafsi ya marehemu."" 3 Katika 1716, 2s ililipwa ""kuweka nje ya mjane Foreman wakati wa kifo chake,"" Idlewood alipata 4d kwa kufanya zamu yake, waziri na kasisi walipewa 2s kwa mazishi yake, 6s ililipwa 2s, na 3s ilitumika kwa bia wakati wa mazishi yake." Mwaka 1716 Mjane Granger na Mjane Hews walipokea shilingi 2 kwa kumweka mbele msichana wa Aythorne, na waziri, karani na mkurugenzi wa kanisa walipokea shilingi 3 kwa kumzika, ingawa wakati huu shilingi 1 tu ilitumiwa kwa bia baada ya mazishi. Mwaka 1720 2s 6d ilipewa Gibbins "kwa ajili ya kunywa katika mazishi ya baba yake". "Hakuna hata mmoja aliyekufa baada ya kupewa msaada wa parokia kwa mwaka mmoja, na 1 shillingi ilitumiwa ""kuweka Thomas Heros mbele wakati wa kifo,"" 3 shillingi 6 ilitolewa kwa waziri, karani na mkurugenzi wa kanisa ""kwa ajili ya mazishi yake,"" na 2 shillingi 6 ilitumiwa ""kwa ajili ya bia iliyonywa wakati wa mazishi yake.""" Mwaka 1721 kulikuwa na mfululizo wa malipo kwa bia katika mazishi; 5s 4d kwa <unk>galoni nane za bia kali katika Fasham <unk>s Burying<unk>, 4s kwa <unk>galoni sita za bia kali katika Widd Blackabee <unk>s Funeral, na 4s kwa <unk>galoni sita za bia kali katika Widd Castle <unk>s Funeral. Mwaka 1723 Shilingi tatu zililipwa kwa wanaume kwa kuweka mbele William Goodbourne, Shilingi nane zililipwa kwa sanduku, Shilingi tatu na nusu kwa gharama za mazishi na Shilingi tano na nusu kwa bia kwenye mazishi yake. Mwaka 1731 Henry Petkin, mtengenezaji wa bia na maltster, alipata shilingi 14 kwa bia kwa mazishi manne na mwaka 1734 alipata shilingi 4 kwa galoni sita za bia kwa mazishi ya binti Smith. Kwa kweli, wasimamizi walitumia pesa nyingi sana kununua bia. Malipo kwa Mjane Dixon, msimamizi wa nyumba ya wageni, mara nyingi huonekana katika rekodi za wasimamizi. Mwaka 1716 alipata mshahara wa shilingi tano kwa kunywa bia wakati wasimamizi walipoamua kiwango cha maskini [at making my sess]. Pia alipata shilingi 1 3 kwa bia wakati wa ubatizo wa mvulana wa Heros na, kwa kusikitisha, shilingi 1 3 mwaka wa 1719 kwa bia wakati wa mazishi ya mvulana wa Heros. "Mwaka 1717 alipata mshahara wa shilingi 5 na shilingi 6 kwa ""kufanya sess yangu"" na shilingi 4 na shilingi 6 kwa ""kuchagua maafisa"" ingawa gharama kubwa zaidi inaonekana kuwa ya wasimamizi na karani wa parokia wakati wa kusafiri kwa biashara ya parokia, ingawa malipo kama hayo kwa kawaida huonekana kama ""masharti"" au ""gharama.""" Kwa mfano, katika 1722 tuna 6s 6d <unk> kwa ajili ya malipo katika Dover kuhusu Parish Business <unk> na 1s <unk> kwa ajili ya malipo katika St Peters <unk>. Katika safari ya Michael Trapp ya Dover na London mwaka 1733 iliyoelezwa baadaye, tuna 6s 9d iliyotumika kwa 'chakula na kinywaji kwa 4 yetu kwenye safari ya London' na 6s iliyotumika kwa 'gharama kwa 5 yetu'. Jambo moja lisilo la kawaida katika mazishi ya wakati huo lilikuwa kulipa kwa ajili ya kuzikwa katika kitambaa cha kitani. Sheria ya 1666 ilibadilishwa na kuanzishwa mwaka 1678 na ilitumiwa kwa ajili ya kuzikwa kwa sufu ya sufu tu, na iliwazuia wazalishaji wa sufu kutoka nje ya nchi na kuondoa gharama za kuuza nguo za kitani. "Hata hivyo, ili kuthibitisha kwamba mwili ulikuwa umezikwa katika kitambaa cha sufu, na ili kuzuia ushirikiano, hati hiyo ilihitaji kupatikana kutoka kwa ""mwalimu wa parokia jirani"" - kwa St. John's, kwa kawaida alikuwa ""mwalimu wa St. Peter's.""" "Ikiwa familia ilihitaji kuzikwa kwa kitani, walipaswa kulipa faini ya £ 5, lakini waliporipoti ukweli wa kuzikwa kwa kitani kwa wasimamizi, £ 2 10s ilirudishwa kwao, na £ 2 10s iliyobaki iligawanywa kwa maskini, matokeo yalikuwa kwamba kuzikwa kwa kitani ilikuwa anasa tu kwa wale walio na hali nzuri. ""1685 4sd ililipwa na wasimamizi kwa 'Goodwife Pound na Mjane' kwa kuweka Ann Stokes mbele, na kwa kwenda St. Peter's ili kufanya kiapo kwamba alizikwa huko Woolen Pier." Mwaka 1686 Wadhamini walipokea £ 2 10s ya Widd Small kwa kuzikia mumewe katika Lynne na Widd Wright kuzikwa katika Lynne. Mwaka 1687 walipokea fedha za £2 10s kutoka kwa Widd Price kwa kumzika mume wake huko Lynne, kutoka kwa Bi Glover kwa mama yake kuzikwa huko Lynne, na kutoka kwa Thoreau. Grant kwa kuzikia mtoto wake katika Lynnen. <unk> Wasimamizi kisha kurekodi kwamba £ 7 10s ilikuwa <unk>kusambazwa kwa maskini wa parokia<unk>. Hata hivyo, katika mwaka wa 1688, waangalizi waliandika kwamba walipokea 'Tho. "Thornden kwa kuzikia mtoto wake katika Lynne, na kwa hiyo alipata fedha hiyo tena, kwa kuwa alikuwa maskini. ""Sheria ya ziada juu ya mazishi ilianzishwa mwaka 1695 na kupitishwa kwa Sheria ya kumpa Mfalme ushuru na wajibu fulani juu ya ndoa, kuzaliwa, na mazishi, na juu ya wavulana na wajane, kwa muda wa miaka mitano, kwa ajili ya kuendelea na vita dhidi ya Ufaransa kwa nguvu. """ Mwaka 1696 Walinzi walipiga 4s kama sehemu ya gharama za mazishi ya mjane Pike na mwaka 1698 waliandika malipo ya 14s kwa ajili ya wafalme Duty juu ya mazishi ya Peter Marsh, mke wa John Fasham, Witt Foreman, na kuzaliwa kwa Alice Poynter's Child. "Mwaka 1702 wajibu wa mfalme ulikuwa umegeuka kuwa wajibu wa malkia, na wasimamizi waliandika malipo ya 12s kwa ""mali ya malkia kwa mazishi ya Ovenden, Fashon, na Jarvis"" - wakati mwingine wasimamizi waliuza bidhaa za nyumbani za mshiriki wa parokia aliyekufa na ambaye walikuwa wakimtegemeza." Katika mwaka wa 1688, akaunti za Mwangalizi zinaorodhesha malipo ya 4d kwa kulia kwa Edw. Sandwell's Goods, kwa maneno mengine, kwa Town Crier kutangaza kwamba bidhaa za Sandwell zilikuwa kwa ajili ya kuuza; pia walitumia 1s 6d kwa ajili ya Mkate na Bia katika kuuza Edw. Sandwell Goods: Kwa mtazamo wa kwanza hii inaweza kuonekana kuwa mbaya, lakini wasimamizi walikuwa wametumia kiasi kikubwa cha fedha katika mazishi yake, katika kulipa madeni yake, na katika kusaidia watoto wake: Alipa Sarah Meakings kwa Cask na Beer kwamba Edw. Sandwell alikuwa na yake <unk> 1s 6d kulipwa John Lister kwa ajili ya 1⁄2 Chall. Ya Coales Edw. Sandwell alikuwa na yake <unk> 8s kulipwa mambo katika Edw. Sandwell's funeral na kwa Cloath [yaani "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika taarifa ya ""Site"" ya mwaka huu, ""Site"" ilitoa fedha za ziada kwa ajili ya kuandaa maadhimisho ya siku mbili ya maadhimisho ya mwaka huu kwa ajili ya Eddy." Sandwell binti <unk> 4s 3d kulipwa kwa 12 oz. Ya Yarne ya kufanya Ed. Sandwell's Childrens Stockings - 1702 - Thomas Bishop, Mtaalamu wa Mifuko ya Watoto "Wanawake wa zamani walipata matibabu ya ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mwiba"" na ""mimba"" na ""mimba"" na ""mimba"" na ""mimba Mwaka 1702 mke wa Thomas Huffam alipokea £ 1 kwa kuponya Haselton's Legg na mwaka 1703 alipokea £ 10 kwa kuponya Edw. Katika mwaka wa 1706, Goody Yeomans alipokea £1 2s 6d kwa ajili ya kuponya vichwa vya wavulana wa Pummett. "Avery, ambaye alikuwa mjamzito, alipewa 3s mara mbili mnamo 1718 kwa ""mwili kwa mvulana wa Rys"" na mnamo 1722 parokia ililipa 6d kwa ""mvulana wa Rys akiruhusu damu,"" kwa matumaini na mmoja wa madaktari wa eneo hilo. ""Hisabati zina marejeo machache sana kwa malipo ya wakunga." Mwaka 1723 alipata mshahara wa shilingi 2 kwa ajili ya kumtoa mtoto, na mwaka 1718 alipata mshahara wa shilingi 2 kwa ajili ya kumtoa mtoto, na mwaka 1735 alipata mshahara wa shilingi 3 kwa kumtunza mkewe Pearse Lawrence. Madaktari wa eneo hilo wanafanya kazi katika parokia hiyo wameelezwa katika Sura ya 3. "Wakati wa kuajiriwa, walilipa ""mashine"" kwa Nicholas Chewney, ""mashine"" kwa Edward Jarvis, ""mashine"" kwa Edward Jarvis, ""mashine"" kwa George Hammond, ""mashine"" kwa George Hammond, na ""mashine"" kwa George Hammond." Thomas Watts alionekana kuwa daktari wa kwanza na jukumu maalum kwa maskini; katika 1732 alipata £ 6 6s kwa ajili ya dawa kwa ajili ya maskini kwa makubaliano ya Parokia. Hata hivyo, madaktari wengine pia waliendelea kutibu maskini; mwaka 1732 Henry Wallis alipata £2 8s 8d kwa ajili ya matibabu na kuwatunza maskini, mwaka 1734 Thomas Wheatley alipata £1 3s 11d kwa ajili ya matibabu na kuwatunza maskini, na mwaka 1736 George Slater alipata £9 4s 10d pia kwa ajili ya matibabu na kuwatunza maskini. "Kulipa damu kwa mara moja kuligharimu dola 6 za Uingereza, na mwaka 1730 Henry Wallis alipata dola 6 za Uingereza kwa ""kuweka damu ya mtoto mmoja,"" kiasi ambacho kilikuwa kililipwa mwaka 1722 kwa ""kuweka damu ya mvulana wa Rhys.""" Katika mwaka wa 1728 alipewa shilingi 6 kwa ajili ya miwani ya W. Inward na mwaka wa 1733 alipewa shilingi 2 kwa ajili ya Gabrielle Foard. Kwa magonjwa ya kuambukiza kama vile ugonjwa wa chembe ndogo, tahadhari maalum zilitolewa, ikiwa ni pamoja na kusafisha nyumba ambapo mgonjwa alikufa, kuweka kufuli na staple (kwa kufuli na padlock) kwenye mlango wa nyumba, na kuwa makini hasa wakati wa mazishi. "Mfano mmoja ulifanyika mwaka 1708 wakati mjane Pegden alipokufa; kwa kawaida yeye alikuwa wote socked, ""to sock"" kuwa Kentish dialect maana ya shroud au wrap maiti katika nguo kaburi, na kuweka katika sanduku: ""kwa kuweka nje Widd Pegden"" - ""4s kwa Socking kwa ajili yake"" - ""8s kwa ajili ya kaburi na malipo yote kwa ajili ya Waziri na Clark"" - ""6s kwa ajili ya kulipa katika ugonjwa wake"" - ""6s kwa ajili ya kubeba yake kwa kanisa"" - ""3s kwa ajili ya kusafisha nje ya nyumba"" - ""8s kwa ajili ya lock na staple"" - ""8s matibabu ya gharama kubwa." Mwaka 1725 Edward Jarvis alipata £11 kwa kupasua mkono wa Bird na mwaka 1731 Henry Wallis alipata £3 kwa kumponya mwana wa W. Everitt. Mwaka 1733 Slater alipata £415 kwa kumponya Margaret Blackburn mguu na mwaka 1736 alipata £5 3 6 kwa kumtunza Sarah Maynard. Mwaka 1735 Thomas Wheatley alipata shilingi 1 kwa kumponya Easter Mockett katika nyumba ya maskini na Walter Plummer alipata shilingi 3 10 6 kwa kumponya kichwa cha mvulana wa Wid Blackburn na malipo mengine. Kisa kimoja, cha mvulana mdogo, John Barton [Burton], kilikuwa kigumu zaidi. Mwaka 1728 wasimamizi walitumia shilingi 4 kwa ajili ya kushauriana kuhusu 'kukata mguu wa mvulana huyo'. "Hata hivyo, katika akaunti ya mwaka wa 1729 kuna orodha ya gharama za John Barton: ""Kwa amri ya kumpeleka John Barton kwa Bi Starks, kwa Mshauri Turner kwa ushauri juu ya John Barton, kwa Bwana Turner na safari yangu ya Canterbury katika vikao kuhusu John Barton, kwa safari ya mashahidi na gharama za 16,"" kwa mshirika wa Turner, ""Kwa mshirika wa Turner, mshirika wa Turner alikuwa mwanasheria wa ndani ambaye wasimamizi walimgeukia mara kadhaa kwa ushauri wa kisheria." Hata hivyo, ilibidi kuamua kuendelea na amputation na mwaka 1729 Dk Watts alipokea £ 5 5s kwa kukata mguu wa Barton. Amputation lazima kuwa mafanikio tangu kuingia baadaye katika akaunti ni kwa ajili ya 4s 6d <unk>kwa mguu wa mbao kwa Barton <unk>mvulana. Mwishowe, mwaka 1730, parokia ilikubali kutumia £ 16 kumfundisha John Barton kwa Francis Cobb; haijulikani kama Francis Cobb alikuwa na uhusiano na familia ya Cobb ambayo baadaye ikawa muhimu sana katika mji. Baadhi ya visa vya kitiba vilionwa kuwa vikali vya kutosha kuhitaji kutibiwa hospitalini. Mwaka 1732 mjane Grigg alipata malipo ya shilingi 10 ili kumpeleka mwanawe hospitalini. "Hii ni kwa sababu ya malipo ya ""4s 6d"" kwa Henry Petten mnamo 1734 kwa gharama za kumpeleka binti Smith kwenye hospitali, ""1s 16d"" kwa Stephen Baker mnamo 1735 kwa gharama za Hospitali ya St Thomas na ""1s 11d"" kwa John Simmons mnamo 1737 kwa gharama za Robert Bubb na Thomas Dawson." Mwaka 1719 James Stone alipata ugonjwa wa kibofu cha mkojo. Dakika ya mkutano wa sakristi inarekodi kwamba mkusanyiko ulikuwa umefanywa katika mji "ili yeye [James Stone] aweze kukatwa kwa jiwe". Mkutano huo uliamua kwamba ikiwa mkusanyiko haufiki kiasi kinachohitajika, maofisa wa parokia wangeweza kuchukua usawa kutoka kwa kiwango cha maskini. Kwa kweli gharama zilizohusika zilikuwa kubwa. Stone alisafiri kwenda na kutoka London katika nyumba ya Stephen Pamflet, ambayo Pamflet alilipwa shilingi 9; Pamflet pia alipewa £ 11.7 6d kwa matumizi ya James Stone, labda wakati wa London, na £ 4.6 zaidi kwa kulipa Apothecary, kwa matumizi ya James Stone. Matibabu ya wagonjwa wa akili wa muda mrefu yalikuwa magumu hasa. Katika kipindi kilichofunikwa na masimulizi ya wasimamizi kuna kisa kimoja tu cha wazi cha ugonjwa wa akili - kile cha John Norwood, mtengenezaji wa kamba au mtengenezaji wa viatu. Katika mwaka wa 1719, mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba. Hii ilifuatiwa katika 1720 na malipo ya jumla ya £ 115s kwa mke wake <unk> katika mara kadhaa katika haja <unk>. Mwaka 1721 alipewa dini sita kwa mpasuaji wa John Norwood, na mwaka 1722 alipewa dini mbili kwa John Norwood mwenyewe na dini sita zaidi kwa Francis Dixon, mpasuaji wa John Norwood. Mwaka 1723 hali ilikuwa imezidi kuwa mbaya kwa John Norwood na mke wake. Mwaka huo mkewe alikuwa tena 'katika uhitaji' na kupokea 2s 6d, na John Norwood alikuwa tena shaved na Francis Dixon. Hata hivyo, akaunti sasa ni pamoja na 5s <unk> kwa ajili ya mnyororo mpya kwa John Norwood<unk>, 4s kulipwa kwa Thomas Sprackling, seremala, <unk> kwa ajili ya kazi kuhusu nyumba ya John Norwood<unk>, na 5s kwa <unk> malipo kwa ajili ya kufungwa John Norwood<unk>. Mwaka 1723 mkewe alipewa shilingi 7 na shilingi 3 zaidi wakati John Norwood alipokuwa amefungwa kwa minyororo, na mwaka 1724 mkewe alipewa shilingi 10 na Francis Dixon alipata shilingi 1 na shilingi 2 kwa kuondoa nywele za kichwa cha John Norwood. "Hali ilikuwa mbaya zaidi kufikia mwaka wa 1725 wakati ""shanzi tano na tisini"" zilitumiwa kwa ""watu wanne kusaidia juu ya John Norwood"" na ""shanzi sita"" zilitumiwa ""juu ya biashara ya parokia, kumfunga John Norwood"" na ""shanzi sita zaidi kwa ajili ya nyasi kwa nyumba ya John Norwood"" na ""alikuwa na kichwa chake kikatwa tena na Francis Dixon kwa 6.""" Baadaye, mwaka wa 1725, uamuzi ulifanywa kwamba alipelekwe London, labda kwenye hospitali ya wagonjwa wa akili. "Hata hivyo, akaunti hiyo ilirekodi malipo ya Shilingi 2.6 kwa John Norwood mwenyewe na malipo ya Shilingi 9.6 kwa ajili ya ""vitu kadhaa kama viatu, suruali, kofia, kofia kwa ajili yake"" ili awe na mavazi sahihi." "Wakati wa safari hiyo, Thomas Walton alipata £2 10s ""kwa kubeba John Norwood kwenda London"" na Mark Browne alipata £1 1s ""kwa kwenda London na John Norwood.""" Mwishowe, Stephen Baker, baharia, alipata £1 10s kwa malipo ya John Norwood, na Richard Laming, mfanyakazi wa meli, alipata £6 8s 6d kwa kubeba John Norwood kwenda London, malipo ya juu ya uwezekano wa maana kwamba Norwood na walinzi wake walikuwa abiria pekee juu ya Hoy. Wakati huo huo, huko Margate, William Cook, msani, alipata mshahara wa shilingi sita kwa kazi ya nyumba ya John Norwood na Thomas Barber, seremala, alipata mshahara wa shilingi tano na senti tatu kwa kazi iliyofanywa katika nyumba ya John Norwood. Hakuna rekodi ya kile kilichompata hatimaye. Waangalizi hao waliwatunza watoto yatima walio maskini na kuwategemeza watoto ambao wazazi wao hawangeweza kuwategemeza. Hii inaweza kuchukua fomu ya malipo ya kila wiki, inayoitwa pensheni, iliyotolewa kwa mtu katika parokia ili kutunza watoto, au malipo kwa nguo na viatu. Kwa mfano, mwaka 1666 Thomas Foster alipata mshahara wa shilingi sita kwa ajili ya viatu na kurekebisha viatu kwa ajili ya watoto kadhaa ambao ni wapokeaji wa pensheni.26 Wasimamizi walipanga kulipa malipo ya juu ili watoto waweze kufundishwa, au kufundishwa, kufanya kazi kama watumishi au wanafunzi kwa mabwana au mabibi waliotaka kuwatunza na kuwafundisha. Mwaka 1666 Edward Hurt alipata £2 10 kwa kumchukua Rendall kama mwanafunzi, na John Freeman alipata £5 kwa kumchukua Thomas Tadd kama mwanafunzi, pamoja na £10 zaidi iliyotumiwa kuunganisha mkataba wake; mwaka huo, wasimamizi walilipa £12 6 kwa 'Widd Grant kwa mwaka mmoja kwa ajili ya Rob. Tadd's widow, kifo cha Robert Tadd pengine kuendesha mke wake na mwana katika umaskini. Daniel Allen alipewa £3 kwa kuchukua mwanafunzi wa kike, na parokia pia alilipa £10 kwa kumvaa zaidi, £4 kwa kutengeneza Indentures na £3 kwa kutumia wakati Indentures zilipokuwa zimeandikwa, na pengine bia ili kuhakikisha kwamba tukio hilo lilisherehekewa vizuri. Mnamo 1719 Nicholas Wellen, mfanyabiashara wa makaa ya mawe, alipata shilingi 7 6 kwa kumchukua mvulana, na shilingi 11⁄2 zilitumiwa kumfunga mvulana; mnamo 1719 John Kennett, mtengenezaji, alipata shilingi 2 10 kwa jozi ya suruali kwa mvulana wa Wellen; mnamo 1721 alipata shilingi 1 kwa kumpa jozi ya soksi, na mnamo 1723 William Laming alipata shilingi 2 6 kwa shati na worsted. Mwaka 1728 wakurugenzi walimlipa Mr. Wells, mkulima, pauni tano ili amchukue mwana wa John Thornden, mfanyakazi wa gari, kama mwanafunzi. John Thornden alikuwa mgonjwa na katika shida za kifedha wakati huo, kama mnamo 1728 wasimamizi walimpa 3d kwa kisu, 6d kwa kamba, 2s 6d kwa kofia na 8d kwa'sawa ya miguu nusu'; mnamo 1729 wasimamizi walilipa 3s 6d kuleta John Thornden kutoka Brooksend, 3s 6d kwa Widd Sackett kwa kumtunza, na kisha 6s kwa gharama zake za mazishi. Mwaka 1728 wakuu walimlipa Bi Quince pauni tano ili amchukue Elizabeth Laming kama mwanafunzi; pia walimlipa shilingi nane kwa ajili ya "hood na petticoat" kwa ajili yake. Mwaka 1731 wakuu walimlipa John Kerby, mtengenezaji wa viatu, £168 kwa kumchukua W. Pierce kuwa mwanafunzi wake, na £3 6d kwa mahitaji ya Thomas Huss kwa baharini. Bila shaka, si mafunzo yote yaliyofanikiwa, na magazeti ya mahali hapo yalikuwa na matangazo ya mara kwa mara ya kurudisha wanafunzi waliotoroka. "Mfano wa kawaida ulionekana katika Kentish Post mnamo Novemba 1732 na ni ya kuvutia sana katika kutoa maelezo juu ya jinsi mfanyakazi mchanga wa shamba wa wakati huo angevaa: ""Kimbia kutoka kwa Edward Bings karibu na Margate katika Kisiwa cha Thanet, Jumapili ya 12th, George Simpson, mvulana, karibu na miaka ya 15, alikuwa na pits na pimple ndogo, na nywele nyekundu nyembamba; alikuwa amevaa wakati alipotoka, kanzu nyeupe ya rangi mpya, iliyopangwa na rangi hiyo, na surufu ya ngozi ya kondoo, na vifungo nyeusi." "Atakayemshika au kumlinda na kumtuma ujumbe ili amlete, atakuwa na kuridhika kwa hilo.""" Wakurugenzi walikuwa chini ya hamu ya kusaidia watoto wa mama wasioolewa, kufikiri kwamba wazazi wanapaswa kufanywa kulipa; wakati wao si ilikuwa muhimu kuomba Dover kwa ajili ya kibali cha kutekeleza malipo. Mwaka 1682 wakuu walipiga 3 shillingi 6p kwa ajili ya kupata hati za watoto wa kiume.1739 kumbukumbu ilifanywa kwenye kitabu cha wakuu cha akaunti, wakati malalamiko yamefanywa kwa Mahakimu wa Masikini kuhusu watoto wa kiume. Na hakuna marekebisho au hesabu iliyochukuliwa kuleta wahalifu wa aina hiyo kwa marekebisho. "Hii ni kwa makubaliano ya pamoja na walinzi wa kanisa, wasimamizi, na parishioners ambao majina yao ni underwritten, kukutana katika Vestry kisheria aitwaye, kwamba ""Baba na Mama wa mtoto kama au watoto, ambao hawana kutoa kwa ajili yao kama sheria inaelekeza katika kesi kama hiyo, na mahakimu si kuchukua akaunti yoyote ya wao kama hapo awali kuleta yao kwa marekebisho au adhabu.""" """Tunajitolea kuchunguza na kutafiti zaidi katika mambo kama hayo, ili wahalifu wa aina hii wapate kurekebishwa kwa kiasi, kupigwa ngumi au vinginevyo, na kuwaweka katika kazi ngumu ili kuhifadhi watoto hao wa bastard." "Na zaidi, ni kwa makubaliano ya pande zote kati yetu, ambao majina yetu yameandikwa, kwamba malipo na gharama zinazotokana na kushtakiwa kwa wahalifu wote waliotajwa hapo juu, zitalipwa kutoka kwa Sess ya Masikini. """ Waangalizi walitumia pesa nyingi kuhamisha watu kutoka parokia ambao hawakuwa na haki ya makazi na walifikiri wangeweza kuwa malipo kwa parokia. Mwaka 1716 Robert Sackett alipewa shilingi 2 kwa kumpeleka mwanamke na watoto watatu Canterbury, na mwaka 1719 John Thornden alipokea shilingi 3 kwa kumpeleka mwanamke maskini Sandwich. "Mwaka 1728 wakuu walimpa Widd Jolley pauni moja ""kwa ajili ya kulipa gharama zake"" na wakampa Hoyman pauni sita ""kwa ajili ya safari yake na ya watoto wake kwenda London.""" Mwaka 1730 wakuu walimlipa Daniel Pamflet, mfanyakazi wa nyumba, shilingi nane kwa ajili ya kuhamisha mke na watoto wa Atkins kwenda London. Hata hivyo, mambo yangeweza kuwa ghali ikiwa sheria ingehusika. "Mwaka 1723 wakuu wa kanisa walitumia jumla ya £10 kwa kumpeleka John Hemmings kutoka Margate hadi Rochester, kwa ajili ya hati ya kumpeleka John Hemmings, gharama za safari na gharama za kusafirisha John Hemmings hadi Rochester, na £6 kwa kumpeleka John Hemmings nyumbani kwake.""" Kwanza walilipa shilingi 4 kwa ajili ya farasi na mtu kubeba Ann Poole hadi Chislett. Haijulikani ni kwa nini hii ilifanywa, kama wasimamizi kisha kulipwa 8s kwa Parish Clerk, Michael Trapp, kwa ajili ya'safari yake kwa Ash na Canterbury na Ann Poole' na 2s 'kwa ajili ya kibali na uchunguzi', pengine katika Canterbury. "Wakilima walipaswa kulipa ""senti 4 kwa farasi na mtu wa kumchukua Ann Poole hadi Ash"" na ""senti 5 kwa gharama za siku mbili kwa Ann Poole.""" Kisha mwaka 1732 walilipa £10 kwa Mshauri, £11 kwa ajili yangu mwenyewe na kwa ajili ya walinzi wote wawili wa kanisa kwa ajili ya safari yetu ya Canterbury kwa ajili ya kesi ya Ann Poole na Isaac Parraux katika Sessions, na £11 kwa ajili ya Mshauri kwa ajili ya kesi hizo mbili. Mwishowe, parokia ililazimika kulipa £ 13s kwa parokia ya Ash kwa agizo la mahakama kwa Ann Poole na £ 10s 9d zaidi kwa "gharama zetu na ada za Mahakama", gharama ya jumla ya kuhamisha Ann Poole kutoka St John's hadi Ash ya £ 6 0s 6d. Na hilo halikuwa mwisho wa jambo hilo. Mwaka 1738 Shilingi tatu zilitumiwa kwa ajili ya shughuli za parokia kwa ajili ya Ann Pool na Shilingi tatu na nusu kwa ajili ya kumchunguza Ann Pool katika White Hart huko Margate mbele ya Mheshimiwa Wellard, labda kutoka Dover, na inaonekana kwamba Ann Pool alikuwa akipinga kuhamishwa kwake Ash. Mwaka 1732 Mary Norwood alitumwa Ash, wakati huu inaonekana kwamba kesi hiyo ilisuluhishwa huko Dover. "Waziri huyo alitoa shilingi 6 8 kwa ajili ya kukodisha farasi na safari yangu ya kwenda Dover na Mary Norwood, na walimpa Mr Swinford, mkulima, shilingi 7 6 kwa ajili ya kukodisha farasi na mtumishi kwenda Dover pamoja naye. ""Shirini na sita zaidi zilitumiwa kwa gharama zisizotajwa na shilingi 7 kwa ajili ya amri na uchunguzi wa kumpeleka Ash." Hatimaye wasimamizi walilipa 4s <unk>kwa ajili ya gharama na Mary Norwood<unk>, pengine zilizotokea katika baa za kando ya njia kwenye njia. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""mfano wa msafiri"" ni ""mfanyakazi wa Dover"" ambaye alipewa na Dover Castle, na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" ni ""mfuko wa kuendesha gari"" ambao unahusisha ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari"" na ""mfumo wa kuendesha gari.""" Mchakato huo ulianza kwa malipo ya shilingi tano na senti mbili kwa ajili ya hati kutoka Dover na Newsman, Newsman kuwa mmoja wa watu ambao kusambazwa Canterbury gazeti la ndani, Kentish Post, katika mkoa wote. Kulipa mwandishi wa habari ilikuwa njia ya bei nafuu ya kupata amri kutoka Dover hadi Margate kuliko kutuma mtu hasa Dover kukusanya. Baada ya kupata hati yao, wasimamizi waliwalipa wanaume wawili shilingi 3 ili waweze kumsimamia Wm. Fisher <unk> na wanaume watatu <unk> kwa kuchukua jukumu la wanaume kadhaa <unk>. Ni muhimu kutambua kwamba hakuna kumbukumbu ya matumizi ya polisi katika tukio hili, na, kwa kweli, rekodi za parokia za kipindi hicho hazina kumbukumbu ya polisi wa parokia. Baada ya 'kuchukua jukumu' ya wanaume gharama halisi zilianza: Kwa pesa zilizolipwa kwa safari ya Dover na kukodisha farasi <unk> 6s 8d Kwa pesa zilizolipwa kwa ada ya washauri kuhusu Elgar <unk> 10s 6d Kwa pesa kwa gharama <unk> 1s Kwa pesa zilizolipwa kwa uchunguzi, hati na nakala kwa Tho. "Smith aliandika: ""Kwa fedha zilizolipwa kwa ajili ya kuondoa Goodman Goat (Goat) 1 kwa fedha zilizolipwa kwa ajili ya uchunguzi, hati, na nakala kwa ajili ya Hen." Bassett na Jn. Mason, kila <unk> 7s kwa amri ya kuondoa Wm. Elgar, Jn. Hubbard, Wm. Pegden, Ed. "Kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu, na kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu, na kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu, na kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu, na kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu, na kila mtu alipewa £2 kwa kila mtu.""" "Wafisa wa polisi waliwaomba wakazi wa mji wa London, Stephen Baker, ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London"" na ""mwenyeji wa London.""" Badala ya kuwaweka katika nyumba ya maskini, wasimamizi waliwaweka katika parokia na kisha kuwachochea waendelee na maisha yao. "Hii ni mfano kutoka 1732: ""Kwa Isaac Reynold kwa ajili ya kulala na kuuguza msafiri"" - 4d - ""Kwa ajili ya fedha zilizolipwa kwa ajili ya malipo ya kuondoa yake"" - 1s - ""Kwa ajili ya fedha kwa ajili ya mvinyo kwa ajili ya msafiri"" - 1s - ""Kwa ajili ya fedha kwa ajili ya mvinyo kwa ajili ya mwanamke kusafiri"" - 1s - ""Licha ya juhudi bora ya wasimamizi, viwango parokia iliongezeka inexorably katika kipindi hiki." Lewis alitabiri kwamba, kulingana na Overseers' Accounts, jumla ya gharama kwa maskini katika miaka ya 1663 na 1664 ilikuwa: 17 Katika mwaka wa 1663 - £ 84 - £ 72- £ 162- £ 72- £ 1702 - $ 303 - £ 303 - £ 302 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £ 279 - £