ASPECTS OF THE OLD POOR LAW IN PEMBROKESHIRE
By Simon Hancock
At a meeting of the parish vestry for Steynton, Milford Haven, Pembroke shire, in February 1820, the public-spirited magistrate and collector of customs for the port of Milford Haven, Henry Leach , made the chilling prediction that unless checked, poor relief was ‘an evil which must other wise overwhelm us and shake thefoundations of civil society’ .1 Leach was referring to the system of parochial poor relief financed from local taxation, and although his comments were among the more sensational, the Old Poor Law was, and remained, bitterly contested historical ground. No analysis of the efficacy of the Old Poor Law system can ignore the fundamental question of who the poor were and how widely experienced was poverty by the population of south-west Wales.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that in the overwhel mingly rural agricultural parishes poverty was all too real a personal experience for a high percentage of people. Much of this was ‘life-cycle’ poverty, the consequence of child-birth , accidents, illness, old age and unemployment and thus difficult to avoid.2 The causes were indeed cumulative.3 In the social world of the old poor law the majority of working men would be described as ‘the labouring poor’ which was quite distinct from the demeaning epithet of ‘pauper ‘4 with its later connotations. Poverty was a shifting concept and concepts and perceptions relating to it shifted over time. Percentages of those in receipt of poor relief from parishes or unions are difficult to measure. Marshall puts the figure at 8.6 per cent for England and Wales in 1803, rising to 12.7 per cent in 1813 and 13.2 per cent in 1818. 5 In 1802-3 1,040,716 people were in receipt of relief with children accounting for nearly a third and the old or infirm 16.0 per cent.6 Naturally this was reflected in a sharply curtailed life expectancy for the poor which was rather less than 50 years and with high infant mortality.7
We should be mindful that any analysis of the Old Poor Law must acknowledge the demographic and economic context of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in which it operated . The period 1795-1834 saw unprecedented social and economic pressures to which existing poor relief methods had to respond accordingly.8 Important factors included a rising population, inflation , agricultural depression and structural unemployment which resulted in virtual ‘starvation years’ of the mid-1790s.9 The population of Wales rocketed from 587,245 in 1801 to 904,400 just thirty years later.10 The Old Poor Laws were an astonishingly resilient body of legislation which stood the test of time over two hundred years. Enacted in 1601, they made each parish responsible for its own poor with poor houses to be erected for those who were unable to support themselves. The ‘able bodied’ were to be provided with work and all of this was to be financed by a poor rate based on local property values. Each parish had to appoint Overseers of the Poor who assessed and collected rates and actually arranged for the direct relief of the poor either in cash or kind or sometimes both . They were appointed by the parish vestry, representatives of ratepayers who were ultimately accountable to justices of the peace for the enactment of the poor law provision . Localism was the cornerstone of the regime, which was, in reality, a collection of expedients blessed by Acts of Parliament. The main principles of the 1601 act remained unaltered although there were significant modifications to the Old Poor Laws, such as Gilbert’s Act, to meet changing circumstances.
No aspect of the Old Poor Law was more controversial or aroused such passionate debate than the financial cost borne by ratepayers. Poor rates were merely one of a number of charges levied on property owners in pre income tax days. Tithes, church rates, highway rates and land taxes all made a charge on people’s purses and their complaints of excessive impositions were loud indeed. 11 Taxpayers pointed out that whereas poor rates had raised £2 million in 1784, the figure rose to £5.3 million in 1802/3 and in 1817-8 was £9.3 million. 12 Over the 85-year period from 1748/50 to 1832/4 real per capita expenditure on poor relief increased at an average rate of 1 per cent per annum. 13 On a per capita basis the increases appeared even more alarming, rising from 2s 10d per head in 1750 to 16s 8d in 1812. 14 This amounted to 1.9 per cent of national income in 1802/3,15 miniscule in our time of nationalized welfare services. In fact, poor rates rather mirrored economic and social conditions rather than rising exponentially.
In 1828 Pembrokeshire raised some £28,211 6s in poor rates, an increase of two per cent on the previous year. 16 However, an analysis of parochial accounts paints a picture alien to the notion of ever spiralling costs which detractors of the status quo claimed. For the parish of St. Mary’s, Tenby, a major sea port and rapidly developing seaside resort, some £344 14s 6d was spent on poor relief around the turn of the century. In 1815 the figure was £419 18s 9d, falling to £367 7s in 1 818 and only £218 8s Od in 1830-1 .17 This hardly represented the annihilation of property. Gumfreston parish near Tenby saw its annual expenditure decline from £65 11s 6d in 1 828-29 to £63 3s in 1831-2.18 The Old Poor records of Carew parish are exceptionally well-preserved and from them we glean that poor relief expenditures there reached a peak of £575 14s 8d in 1802 before falling to £553 1s 2d in 1817.19 In 1822-3 St. Mary’s parish, Pembroke spent £650 9s 3d 20 on poor relief although the parish did contain the royal dockyard at Pater with a rapidly rising population .
Concerns over perceived risng poor law costs found legislative expression in the 1818 and 1819 Sturges Bourne Acts which created ‘closed’ or
‘select’ vestries of prominent ratepayers to specialize in poor law policy 21 and with the power to appoint a salaried assistant overseer.22 This standing committee virtually appropriated all policy matters which had previously been discussed in public vestries. 23 At Steynton , a twenty-strong committee ‘to watch over the expenditures of the poor rates’ 24 was appointed to meet twice a month. By 1828 there were 29 select vestries in the county of Pembrokeshire. 25 Carew parish appointed a select vestry on 11 August 1819 ‘to inspect from time to time and audit the poor accounts, to employ the poor and manage the funds of the said parish’.26
They decided to employ a permanent overseer with the handsome salary of £30 per annum. He was one of twelve assistant overseers in Pembroke shire,27 collecting money, collecting settlement certificates , obtaining
bonds of affiliation and other varied duties.28 Enacting the poor law statute to ‘take order for setting to work all such persons as have no means to maintain and use any ordinary or daily trade ’29 parishes frequently found work for unemployed people and it invariably involved road mending. 30 At Llanstadwell, when David Thomas applied to the select vestry for either money or work, he was put to work on the roads3 1 . Steynton parish seems to have been more stringent in extracting work for relief. On 21 July 1820 Edward Wallace was offered 5s a week to be employed by the surveyor of highways, or 2s a week ‘upon his own exertions ‘.32
The Settlement legislation which allowed for the removal of paupers back lo the parish of their birth if they were considered ‘likely to be chargeable’ was another matter for the overseers and the inter-parish litigation as to who was responsible for support of such poor persons was ‘a very fruitful source of parish expense to which the poor rate is applicable’ .33 Pre-1834 Wales must have seen a constant migration of paupers compelled to travel long distances before they found relief. Sometimes people were sent relief by one parish even though they lived considerable physical distances away. In 1822 the Llanstadwell overseer sent Margaret Lewis, who was living in Herefordshire, £2 on account of her weekly allowance.34 Sometimes the settlement of an individual could be both complex and time consuming. In 1833 Richard Mathias of Hayston, Llanstadwell, was allowed his expenses in trying to secure the settlement of Mary Esmond in London. 35 When a clear settlement could not be obtained then removal orders were issued for the pauper to be ordered to move on. On 21 February 1 817 Elizabeth Jenkin, widow, and her five sons, aged nine years to six weeks, were adjudged by the overseers of Llandeloy pari sh to be chargeable to the ‘Parish of Stainton’.36 Settlement examination documents are fascinating and we can learn m uch from them. I n 1 806 Hester Gibbs of Jeffreystone claimed settlement in St. Mary’s Parish , Pembroke on account of being employed there for 18 months on wages of one pound
and five shillings per annu m.37 Employment was on e of the criteria where by settlement could be claimed.
One important aspect of the Old Poor Law was the attitude of parishes to pauper children. Crompton points out that the apprenticing of pauper children was highly useful in rural areas,38 dominated by agriculture . At Mydrim, Carmarthenshire, in 1817, all parish apprentices went to farmers who were paid a premium of £2 10s each.39 At Llanstadwell all persons rated over £ 100 per annum in poor rates were to draw lots to take apprentices. A number were bound , along with the payment of two guineas for those who took them.40 At Carew, in 1820 some twenty-two parish apprentices were bound at £2 2s each costing the poor fund £46 4s, a very considerable outlay.41 Those pauper children who suffered any form of disability were clearly less easy to apprentice. On 21 January 1831 the Carew accounts recorded the cost of apprenticing ‘the clubfoot boy’ at no less than £7.42 In coastal parishes pauper children were far more likely to be apprenticed to mariners and fishermen than farmers. On 5 April 1804 Benjamin Thomas aged 15, was apprenticed to Captain William Reed in Tenby 43 and two weeks later Captain George Williams of the same town also took an apprentice.
In rural parishes the birth of an illegitimate child was far from being a rare occurrence, but one which, nevertheless, had important implications for the Old Poor Laws. Often a couple were forced to marry by parochial authorities before the birth of the child . In other cases the expectant mother would be examined and if the father could be identified then an order was issued for both the delivery of the child and its future mainten ance.44 These bastardy bonds could either be a lump sum, or far more likely, a weekly sum paid by the father until the child reached the age of 14. The actual frequency of illegitimacy i s not always easy to ascertain. Nevertheless the rector of Roch parish , seething with moral indignation noted the baptism of 52 bastards in his parish between 1763 and 1789. 45
Parishes meticulously recorded all the costs associated with pregnancy and were at pains to receive full recompense from the father for their pains. At Tenby, in 1831, Mary Edwards was delivered of a female child. The costs amounted to £5 17s 11d and included 6s 9d for clothing, £3 pay [for 30 weeks] and 13s for constables to travel to Druidston and Roch to serve notices on the father. The costs also involved 4s for a coffin and 2s for a grave for the child who sadly expired shortly after birth.46 At Gumfreston the overseers paid £3 l ls 3d for taking Charles Edwards and for paying for his bond .47 Bastardy bonds demonstrate the determination of parishes to avoid future expenses for illegitimate children. In Llangan in 1 807 William David was unable to pay the full costs of his child begotten on the body of Esther Morris, but was ‘willing to contribute the utmost he can’.48 More usual was the recording of a precise figure for maintenance. In 1819 in Llandeloy, Lewis Williams ‘did beget the said bastard child on the body of the said Margaret Morris ‘and agreed to pay
1s 9d per week.49
Parish poorhouses were perhaps the most physical reminder of the old poor law legislation, although they only accommodated a tiny fraction of the total numbers in relief. In 1803 some 60 Welsh parishes maintained all, or part of their poor in workhouses. 50 Parliamentary returns for 1776-7 listed the operation of almost 2000 parish workhouses. 51 Images of old poor law work houses invoke George Crabbe’s memorable description in The Village  with its walls of mud and broken door.52 In fact, as Oxley reminds us, conditions inside these workhouses are exceedingly poorly documented and were ‘outstanding neither for its squalor and indiscipline nor its exemplary efficiency‘ 53 Work was often supplied for the inmates. spinning or weaving. Pembrokeshire ‘s Old Poor Law work houses are very poorly documented indeed with only fleeting mentions in overseers’ account books and the references to the Johnston and Llawhaden Poor Houses in 1800 and 1787 respectively. Records usually relate to the provision of items for the building, like culm for the Llanstadwell poorhouse in June 1821. 54 We can be sure that running costs were kept to an absolute minimum. On 23 April 1823 the Llanstadwel select vestry ordered that no more than one fire be allowed in the poor house.55
Nevertheless, they later ordered ‘necessary utensils for the house, a small bucket and a small table for making bread’ .56 Most poor houses were either a cottage or row of cottages which could be rented cheaply. On 19 March 1828 the Llanstadwell select vestry rented a cottage on Cant’s Hill from Lady Day 1828 for £2 10s a year.57 Even sparsely populated parishes had their poor houses. In 1822 the Hodgeston Overseer paid 1s for mending the bed there.58 Others paid for renewing the thatch roof of their workhouse. 59 The actual relief granted to individuals and families was entirely discretionary to the vestry and overseer and ‘was based not on a fixed scale but rather on individual needs’ .60 Most outdoor relief went out as small weekly sums,61 paid either weekly, fortnightly or monthly. It was at least flexible and could be increased or decreased to reflect changing cirumstances. 62 Other help could be in kind or cash sums for specific articles. There doe not seem to have been much difference in the help given to the poor m either rural or urban parishes. In August 1821 the Llanstadwell vestry ordered the overseers to provide Ann Williams with a flannel petticoat and two shifts 63 whilst Griffith Twynning was ordered tohave a hat and pair of stockings on 19 December 1821. 64 Sometimes food stuffs were provided directly. On 4 February 1824 Margaret Lewis was given ‘a strike of potatoes’ .65 On another occasion the vestry gave one applicant 7s i n settlement of debts.66 The Hodgeston vestry gave Thomas Evans a strike of barley in 1815 67 and Carew gave John Eynon half aWinchester of barley in 1822 costing 1s 6d. 68
A portion of relief under the Old Poor Law went to recipients to enable them to earn their own livings, in other words to promote self employment. Old poor law accounts have numerous references to people being supplied with the means of generating their own income. In 1803 Mary Rees of Sychpant was provided with a spinning wheel by the authorities at Llanfihangel-ar-Arth.69 In October 1821 John Child of Llanstadwell was given £3 to buy a cow 70 whilst William Briant, a fisherman, was given 20s to help repair his boat.71 Similarly, on 28 April 1830Martha Hart was given £1 so that she could buy a donkey and sell culm.72 In 1818 William Harris was given 4s 6d by the Gumfreston Overseers to buy a plough.13 The usually niggardly Steynton vestry gave Benjamin Edwards of Pill, aged over 80 years of age, £1 so that he could repair his boat which had been ‘injured in bad weather ‘.74
Many entries in the Old Poor Law accounts are concerned with medical
matters; payments for nursing, surgery and for sickness, even though the 1601 legislation made no specific mention of the sick.75 Nevertheless,
medical treatment became an essential part of the overseers’ duties, often
with successful results. In smaller parishes there was a greater chance of individual attention .76 Thomas is of the opinion that parish authorities were generally sympathetic and generous in their approach to medical care, a fact not emphasised enough in studies of poor law adm1nistration. 77
Parishes whether rural or urban, spent significant sums on salaries of doctors and surgeons. Tenby paid Doctor Gower £20 for his annual salary 78 whilst a rural parish with far fewer people like Llanstadwell, paid George Williams, surgeon, £8.79 In 1825 Carew parish paid Doctor Paynter £15. 80 Urban Pembroke remunerated Thomas Mansel to the tune of £25 4s per annum. 81 Parishes seem to have gone to some length to ensure that practitioners were suitably qualified. In 1821 the Steynton vestry received an application from William Folland for £3 to allow him to pay John Hughes, ‘the Blackbridge Doctor’ for curing his daughter’s leg of a white swellmg. The parish refused ‘as the parish employs a surgeon and will not pay an ignorant pretender to the cost’ .82
Most medical expenses involved the birth of children, treating fevers, abscesses and healing broken bones. The Old Poor Law rendered relief in the shape of repairs to the homes of paupers and in the payment of rents. Since the parish often paid rents, paupers could be seen as eligible or eve desirable tenants.83 David Howell has noted how the payment of cottage rents out or the rates was a comm on form or relief to labourers in Wales.84 Numerous Pembrokeshire parishes provided relief with rents. The Hodgeston Overseer allowed Rebecca Rees 10 s ‘for rent’ .85 Carew advanced ‘Widdow Jinkings’ 15s for her half-yearl y rent.86 William Simmond got two guineas from the usu a l l y parsimonious Steynton vestry for a years rent, perhaps on account of his ‘weakly condition’ .87 Board and lodging were also paid. David Harries received 4s for such hospitality which he meted out to ‘a black man’ at Tenby in 1801 .88
Even if it is stretchi ng the facts to represent the Old Poor Laws as a cradle to grave regime, it did often assist with funeral and burial expenses for those without the means to pay for them . Tenby paid 6s 6d for the funeral expenses for George Hughes 89 whilst John Jenkins of Llanstadwell was given assistance to bury his wife. Carew paid the comparatively large sum of £1 3s 2d for Thomas Kendry ‘s funeral 91 and later a coffin for William Jones cost 15s.92 Parish authorities were not always sympathetic . At Steynton in 1 821, Bella Samuel applied on behalf of William Griffiths, a pauper of this parish ‘now a corpse’ 93 for beer and candles at his funeral. The vestry flatly refused, disapproving ‘of the continuance of such customs for the burial of paupers’ .94
The 1601 legislation had expressed the dichotomy between deserving and non-deserving poor and the old poor law, involving as it did an intimate social exchange,95 occasionally invoked moral reproach upon recipients. There was a strong link between morality and the right to poor relief. This often went beyond mere paternalism of looking after one’s own poor.96 In January 1833 the Llanstadwell vestry immediately stopped the relief it was paying to Joseph Child on account of ‘his idle and drunken habits ‘.97 Occasionally recipients were admonished for their temerity in asking for help. In September l820 the wife of David Lewis of Milford who had left his family looking for work was told in no uncertain terms to look to her husband ‘as she will receive no more’ .98 It was the same parish, which in 1823 started making written notes in the vestry minute book on the characters of recipients. When John Thomas, who was ill with small pox was given 10s, the vestry clerk commented ‘a very hard working man but his wife good for nothing’ .99 At the same meeting Elizabeth Phillips was described as ‘a beggar I fancy’ 100 and Elizabeth Williams elicited the heady praise of ‘tolerable good’ .101 In a number of parishes there was the further indignity of paupers having to wear special badges alluding to their status.
The Old Poor Law was the major mean s of support for the poor before 1834, but we should never ignore the contributions made towards poor relief which came from charitable giving and friendly or benefit societies. The great virtue of voluntary charitable giving was that it preserved existing social hierarchies and could not be taken for granted by the recipients.102 Charity came in a variety of guises, either in cash or kind. 103 It is significant that in 1788 charitable income, many founded to assist the poor, reached £258,700. 104 Friendly or benefit societies were another means of preventing destitution and were a defensive reaction to heightened life-cycle risks. 105 In fact it was a collectivist approach to poverty. The payment of small sums each week would insure against sickness, unemployment or bereavement. This notion of self-help provided an alternative to the poor law and helped to keep rates down.!06
Some clubs acquired large cash funds. In 1844 the St. George’s Friendl y Society in Milford had £1101 5s 2d in the bank despite having paid out £250 9s in sickness benefits. 107 Such beneficiaries were not considered eligible for parish relief. In 1 832 Martha Codd of Llanstadwell was refused help since she had recently received £27 on the death of her husband ‘from the club‘. 108 It can be seen that the Old Poor Law was nothing if flexible and although costs could rise, they generally reflected the wider economic and commercial health of communities. Nevertheless, from around 1815 the system came under savage and sustained criticism. Irate correspondents wrote to newspapers calling for economy in poor relief ‘and the reduction of the great costs incurred‘ .109 It is not surprising that the Whig Government, in the spirit of the 1 832 Reform Act, set up a Royal Commi ssion to inquire into the working on the poor laws, especially their costs and alleged corruption . The nine commissioners included lawyers Edwin Chadwick and Nassau Senior, the former a fanatical Benthamite who was driven by a hatred of waste and inefficiency. 110 Their results, nine folio volumes running to almost 5,000 pages, 111 savaged the old poor law regime and ultimately ushered in the Poor Law Amendment Act of l834.
A complex picture emerges from any serious analysis of the Old Poor Laws. There was undoubtedly a wide-ranging paternalism or look i n g after ones own, and yet that sense did not prevent nilateral harshness , as in 1822 when the Llanstadwell vestry curtly cut those receiving weekly allowances without reason or explanation being given. 112 On the positive side the Old Poor Law seems to have been applied in parishes across Pembrokeshire with surprising uniformity, regardless of urban or rural contexts. Costs were in fact not out of control and indeed, in many costs were actually declining. Flexibility and adaptability were key features of the pre-1834 poor relief system 113 combined with personal attention from overseers whom recipients would know. However, there was conversely infinite danger in giving inordinate power to local elites and rural tyrants and inconsistency of approach to similar circumstances. There was the cruel and unedifying spectacle of pregnant women being carted off to thei r place of Settlement, the often cruel treatment meted out to parish apprentices and the treatment of pauper ‘idiots’ . Whim and caprice were not acceptable and critics made the most of this. Nevertheless, flexibility and sensitivity to human need , adjustment to local circumstances, comprehensiveness and local participation counted for much . Marshall thi nks that we can learn as much from the Old Poor Law as we can from the New. 114
1. E. J. R. Morgan, ‘The Ad ministration of the Poor Laws i n Pembrokeshi re, 1780-1870.’ Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Swansea.
2. ‘The Old Poor Law’ , Notes provid ed by M A Tutors at Trinity College, Carmarthen [hereafter Trinity College Notes].
3. Edward Royle, Modern Britain. A Social History 1 750- 1985 (London, 1985), 162.
4. G. E. Mingay, Land and Society in England 1750-1980 (London, 1994), 93.
5. J. D. Marshall, The Old Poor Law 1795-1834 (London, 1985), 35.
6. M. J. Daunton , Progress and Poverty. An Economic and Social History of Britain 1700-1850 (Oxford, 1995), 449.
7. E. D.Evans, A History of Wales 1660-1815 (Cardiff , 1 993), 193.
8. J. D. Marshall , The Old Poor Law , 13.
9. David W. Howell, The Rural Poor in Eighteenth-Century Wales (Cardiff, 2000), 93.
10. Russell Davies, Hope and Heartbreak. A Social History of Wales and the Welsh 1776-1871 (Cardiff, 2005), 35.
11. ‘The Old Poor Law’, Trinity College Notes.
12. Edward Royle, Modern Britain , 174.
13. George R. Boyer, ‘The Economic Role of the English Poor Law 1780-1834’ Journal of Economic History, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1985), 451.
14. G. E. Mingay, Land and Society in England, 97.
1 5. Paul Slack, The English Poor Law 1531-1782 (London , 1990), 30.
16. The Cambrian, 29 March 1828.
1 7. Overseers of the Poor Accounts 1765-1836. St. Mary’s Parish, Tenby. Tenby Museum Archives [hereafter TMA, TEM/Box 5]
18. Overseers of th e Poor Accounts 18-9-1946. Gumfreston Parish. Pembrokeshire Record Office [hereafter PembsRO] HPR177/ 30.
1 9. Overseers of the Poor Accounts 1 815- 1 837. Carew Pari sh PembsRO HDX/ 935/1 .
20. Overseers of the Poor Accounts 1 820-1828. St. Mary ‘s Parish , Pembroke PembsRO, HPR/24/6.
2 1 . Peter Murray, Poverty and Welfare 1815-1850 (London , 2006), 22. 22. ‘Poor Laws’, Trinity College Notes, 5.
21. David Eastwood , ‘Government and Community in the English Provinces 1 700-1970′. Trinity College Notes, I .
24. The Cambrian, 1 8 December 1819.
25. Ibid ., 29 March 1 828.
26. Carew Parish Overseers Accounts, Pem bsRO, H DX/935/1, op. cit.
27. The Cambrian, 29 March 1828.
28. Geoffrey W. Oxley, Poor Relief’ in Eng land and Wales /601-1834 (London 1 974), 46.
29. John Burnett, Idle Hands. The Exeriences of Unemployment, 1790-1990 (London, 1 994), 16.
30. Geoffrey W. Oxley, Poor Relief in Eng land and Wales, 1 1 7.
31. Minute book of Llanstadwell Select Vestry 1 821-1894. Pem bsRO, HPR/1 31/add I.
32. Minute book of Steynton Select Vestry 1820-1824. PembsRO, HPRJ3/28.
33. Times, 11 February I819.
34. Llan stadwell Select Vestry PembsRO, HPR/131/addl.
35 . Ibid.
36. Removal Orders 1 817-1825. Llandeloy Parish PembsRO, HPR/82/20.
37. Overseers of the Poor Account s, St. Mary ‘s Parish, Pembroke , PembsRO., I I PR/24/6, op. cit.
38. Frank Crompton , Workhouse Children (Stroud, 1997), 16.
39. Parish Apprentice Book, Mydrim Parish. Carmarthenshire Record Office.
40. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/131/addl.
41.. Overseers of the Poor Accounts, Carew Parish. PembsRO, HDX/935/ I, op. cit.
43. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. St. Mary’s Parish. TM A .TEM/Box 5, op. cit.
44. ‘Poor Laws 1601 – 1834’. Trinity College Notes, 3.
45. David W. Howell, ‘Society, 1660- 1 793’, Brian Howells Pembrokeshire County History Vol. Ill Early M odern Pembrokeshire. 1536- 1815 (Haverfordwest, 1987), 284.
46. Overseers of the Poor Accounts, St. Mary ‘s Parish, Tenby. TMA, TEM/Box 5.
47. Overseers of the Poor Accounts, Gumfreston Parish PembsRO, HPR/77/30.
48. Bastardy Bonds, Llangan Parish, PembsRO, HPR/67/10.
49. Bastardy Orders, Llandeloy parish 1819-1821. PembsRO, HPR/82/21.
50. David W. Howell, The Rural Poor, 105. 5 1 . ‘Poor Laws’, Trinity College Notes, 4.
52. Ronald B. Hatch, ‘George Crabbe and the Workhouses of the Suffolk Incorporations.’ Philological Quarterly, 54:3 (1975), 690.
53. Geoffrey W. Oxley, Poor Relief in England and Wales, 93.
54. Llanstadw ell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/131/addl.
58. Overseers of the Poor Accounts 1813-1837. Hodgeston Parish, PembsRO,
59. Overseers of the Poor Accou nts. Carew Parish , PembsRO, HDX/935/1.
60. David W. Howell, Land and People in Nine 1een1h-ce111u1·y Wales (London, 1977), 103.
61. Paul Slack, The English Poor Law. 27.
62. Geoffrey W. Oxley, Poor Relief in England and Wales, 63.
63. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/131/add l.
67. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Hodgeston pari sh, PembsRO, HPR/70/8.
68. Overseers of the Poor Accou nts. Carew Parish, PembsRO, HDX/935/1.
69. ‘The Poor Law’, Trinity College Notes, 7.
70. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/1 31/add l. 71. Ibid.
73. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Gumfreston Parish, PembsRO, HPR/77/30.
74. Minutes of the Steynton Select Vestry 1820-1824. PembsRO, HPR3/28.
75. Edward Royle, Modern Britain, 173.
76. E.G. Thomas, ‘The Old Poor Law and Medicine’, Medical History, Vol. 24, 2 ( 1980).
77. Ibid., 3.
78. Overseers of the Poor Accounts, St. Mary’s Parish, Tenby. TMA TEM/Box 5
79. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/ 131 /addl.
80. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Carew Parish, PembsRO, HDX/ 935/l.
81 . Overseers of the Poor Accou nts. St. Mary’s Parish Pembroke. PembsRO HPR/24/6.
82. Steynton Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/3/28 .
83. E. D. Evan s, A H istory of Wales, 194.
84. David W. Howell, Land and People, 103.
85. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Hodgeston Parish, PembsRO, HPR/70/8.
86. Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Carew Parish, PembsRO, HDX/935/1.
87. Steynton Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/3/28.
88. Overseers of the Poor Accounts, St. Mary ‘s Parish Tenby. TMA, TEM/Box 5.
89. Ibid. ·
90. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/1 3 1/addl.
9 1 . Overseers of the Poor Accounts. Carew Parish Pembs RO HDX/935/1
93. Steynton Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/3/28.
95. ‘Poor Laws before 1 834’, Trinity College Notes, I .
96. Trinity College Tutorial, 7 February 2007.
97. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/3/28.
98. Steynton Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/3/28.
99. Ibid .
100. Ibid .
101. Ibid .
102. M. J. Daunton , Poverty and Progress, 448.
103. John Broad, ‘Parish Economies of Welfare 1 650- 1 834’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4 ( 1999), 987.
104. Paul Slack, The English Poor Law, 52.
105. Martin Gorsky, ‘The growth and distribution of English friendly societies in the early nineteenth century’, Economic History Review, No. 3 ( 1998), 489.
106. The Poor Law System: An Overview’, Trinity College Notes, 23.
107. Pembrokeshire Herald, 26 Apri l 1844.
108. Llanstadwell Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/ 131/addl.
109. The Cambrian, 6 July 181 6.
110. ‘The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1832-1834’, Trinity College Notes, I.
111. Mark Blaug, ‘The Poor Law Report Re-examined’, Journal of Economic Htstory, Vol. 24, No. 2 ( 1 964), 230.
112. Llanstad well Select Vestry. PembsRO, HPR/131 /add I.
113. M. J. Daunton, Poverty and Progress, 1 1 3. 1 14. J. D. Marshall, The Old Poor Law, 50.