2008 Journal

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 [1783] 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.
42. lhid.
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.
55. Ibid.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
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.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
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.
72. 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
92. Ibid.
93. Steynton Select Vestry.  PembsRO, HPR/3/28.
94. Ibid.
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.