Poor Relief in Morden 1750–1834

Studies in Merton History 11: by Gladys Stockwell

A few years ago, Mrs Gladys Bayton offered to the Society her dissertation, undertaken while teacher training in the early 1960s, on the efficiency of the poor relief administration in Morden, using the documents then in the parish chest at St Lawrence Church, Morden.
Sadly, it was shortly after this that she developed the cancer that finally claimed her life in December 2018, which first rearranged her priorities so that she did not have time to search for her study and later prevented her from doing so. We are very grateful, therefore, that her husband, when he came across the dissertation, offered it to us.

Extract from the Introduction

Poor Relief in Morden
1750-1834

Gladys Stockwell

Studies in Merton History: 11

MERTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY – 2022

PREFACE

A few years ago an old friend, Mrs Gladys Bayton, learning of my interest in local history, mentioned
that she had written her dissertation, while teacher training in the early 1960s, on the efficiency of the
poor relief administration in Morden, using the documents then in the parish chest at St Lawrence
Church, Morden.

Although I had purchased a set of microfiche copies of these documents from Surrey History Centre
in 2003 and had used some information from the assessment lists in them to identify landholders in
the late 18th century, I had shied away from studying the hundreds of pages relating to the care and
support of the poor, so I was delighted when Gladys offered to search out her dissertation and pass
it to me. Sadly, it was shortly after this that she developed the cancer that finally claimed her life in
December 2018, which first rearranged her priorities so that she did not have time to search for her
study and later prevented her from doing so. I am very grateful, therefore, that her husband, when he
came across the dissertation, offered it to me.

Obviously, our general knowledge about Morden in the late 18th and early 19th centuries has
progressed over the decades since Gladys wrote this work, particularly in relation to the various
properties and their owners and occupiers, so I am also grateful that Jack Bayton raised no objection
to my adding to it to bring it up to date. The documents themselves are now in the safe hands of Surrey
History Centre, and have been catalogued, so I have gone through the dissertation, identifying each
reference cited by Gladys, and giving its current reference. The pages of the vestry minute books and
overseers’ accounts are not numbered, but I have used the number of the spread photographed on the
various microfiches to assist anyone who, like me, needs to access them. In reading through the vestry
minutes, and dipping into the accounts, I found many other interesting entries in addition to those
so carefully selected by Gladys to illustrate her study, and I have not been able to resist adding a few
which seemed particularly pertinent in explaining and expanding on those already cited.

At the time of researching the author was Miss Gladys Stockwell, living in Morden, and it therefore
seems appropriate that this work should be published in her maiden name.

Gladys particularly acknowledged the help she had received from Canon T L Livermore MA, Rector
of the Parish of Morden; E M Jowett MA, FLA, Librarian of Merton and Morden, and her staff, and
Miss M V Jones MA.

In addition I would like to thank Jack Bayton for allowing the Society to publish his late wife’s work,
Surrey History Centre for supplying me with the microfiche copies and for allowing images from
the documents to be reproduced here; Rosemary Turner for passing photocopies, from her late
husband Steven Turner’s collections, of some of these documents; Merton Library Service for allowing
reproduction of the extract from a tracing of the tithe map and of the engraving on page 46; David
Heath-Whyte, Rector of Morden, for the use of the two watercolours and the photograph of the parish
chest; West Surrey Family History Society for permission to use their map of Surrey parishes on pages
50 and 51; and Judith Goodman, David Haunton, Keith Penny and Tony Scott of Merton Historical
Society for their editorial expertise. But first and foremost, my thanks go to Gladys for undertaking
such a mammoth task and for allowing it to be published.

Peter Hopkins – October 2022

ISBN 978 1 903899 82 3

Cover illustration: A watercolour of St Lawrence church Morden from before 1805, one of a pair
purchased from an ‘extra-illustrated’ edition of Lysons’s Environs of Surrey and
now in the possession of the church. Reproduced by kind permission.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

CHAPTER 1: RATING……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

PROVISION FOR THE POOR………………………………………………………………………………………………5

PERSONNEL…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

PROPERTY VALUATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………7

POOR RATES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11

CHAPTER 2: OUTDOOR RELIEF……………………………………………………………………………………………….13

PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………13

APPRENTICESHIP……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

WEEKLY RELIEF…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

PROVISION OF FOOD AND CLOTHING…………………………………………………………………………20

CHAPTER 3: THE WORKHOUSE……………………………………………………………………………………………….23

BUILDING MORDEN’S WORKHOUSE…………………………………………………………………………….23

MANAGING THE WORKHOUSE………………………………………………………………………………………26

THE OCCUPANTS OF THE WORKHOUSE……………………………………………………………………..28

EXPENDITURE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL……………………………………………………………………………32

REMOVAL ORDERS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES………………………………………………………………………………………….39

SETTLEMENT EXAMINATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………..40

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..46

APPENDIX I: Assessment made 1 February 1816 @ 15d in the pound …………………………………………49

APPENDIX II: Recorded removals to Morden (maps) ………………………………………………………………….50

APPENDIX III: Recorded removals from Morden (maps)……………………………………………………………..51

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..52

NOTES & REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53

NOTE ON WEIGHTS, MEASURES, VALUES AND CODES USED

Imperial measures are used in the original documents, and have been retained in this study:

1 acre (a) = 4840 square yards = 4047 square metres = 0.4047 hectares (ha)

1 yard (yd) = 3 feet (ft) = 36 inches (in) = 0.9144 metres (m)

1 bushel = 8 gallons = 36.4 litres

1 pound (£) = 20 shillings (s) = 240 pence (d)

It is difficult to compare money values over the centuries, but data from the Bank of England and The
National Archives suggest that the present value of each £1 would fall within the ranges set out below:

1750 £117 – £227

1775 £87 – £165

1800 £44 – £86

1820 £57 – £99

1838 £60 – £113

Numbers in square brackets represent an identity number [ID] for each property, in line with comparable
studies of the contemporary land tax records, and these are located on a sketch map on page 48. Later names
of properties have been used where contemporary names are not known. [?] indicates that the property has
not as yet been firmly identified.

INTRODUCTION

This study is concerned with the ancient parish of Morden, in Surrey until 1965 but now part of the
London Borough of Merton. Today it is a suburb of London, but in 1750-1834 it was a typical village
community of the period, with a population of some 500-600 inhabitants. Despite its small population
and, indeed, limited size of less than 1500 acres, Morden has had a long history.

The Roman road we know as Stane Street passed through Morden, and Romano-British ceramic
fragments have been found in the area around St Helier station, suggesting settlement in the vicinity.1
An estate at Morden is first mentioned in 969, when King Edgar confirmed that it had been given to
the recently refounded Westminster Abbey.2 It remained as church property under the Normans. It is
mentioned in Domesday Book as follows:

Land of the Church of Westminster: In Wallington Hundred

The Abbey of Westminster holds Morden itself. Before 1066 it answered for 12 hides, now for 3 hides. Land for
[blank in manuscript]. In lordship 3 ploughs; 8 villagers and 5 cottagers with 4 ploughs. 1 slave. 1 mill at 40s.
Value before 1066 £6, now £10; however, it pays £15.3

The abbey continued to hold the estate until the dissolution of the monasteries, when it passed into
Crown ownership. In 1553/4 it was sold to two London merchants, Edward Whitchurch and Lionel
Ducket, who in turn sold it that same year to a London lawyer, Richard Garth. He later obtained two
more small estates in Morden – Spital and Hobbaldes – formerly held by Merton Priory. The manor
of Morden remained in the possession of the Garth family until 1884, though Spital was sold in 1639.4

Morden appears to have had a comparatively uneventful history with no record of great upheaval. It
seems likely, therefore, that the administration of the parish would have proceeded smoothly in the
period preceding 1750. For the period after 1750 documents, formerly in the parish chest but now at
Surrey History Centre, indicate an efficient administration.

The population of the parish does not appear to have been very large in the century or so post-1750.
Accurate figures do not exist before 1801 but there is no indication that anything significant happened
in the years 1750-1801 to affect the population. The census figures for the early 19th century show the
population growing slowly:5

1801 1811 1821 1831 1841

512 549 638 655 685

The land usage of the parish is revealed in the tithe apportionment of 1838 – 785 acres arable, 455
acres meadow or pasture, 19 acres woodland, 70 acres common pasture land, 14½ acres [tithe free]
glebe lands, a total of 1343½ acres [544 ha]. Residential property brought the total area of the parish
to 1422¾ acres [576 ha].6

The underlying geology is London Clay, which makes it very difficult to grow certain crops. In his
book An Economic History of England: The 18th Century, T S Ashton said that much of the southern
clay belt was used for growing wheat in the 18th century, which may be true for Morden too.7 It was
certainly so in the 14th century, though barley and oats were also important crops.8

Although Morden appears to have been a stable area, with no indication of great hardship, it still had to face
the perennial problem of the poor. The officers of the parish were required to organise poor relief under
successive Poor Law Acts. The following chapters will explore how effectively the parish built up its poor
relief system in the period 1750-1834. This included the organising of the poor rates, their assessment
and collection; the giving of relief through providing work, money, food and clothing; and, of course,
the workhouse. The parish also concerned itself with the difficult problem of settlement and removal.

CHAPTER 1: RATING

PROVISION FOR THE POOR

In the early history of this country, payment for the support of the poor was voluntary. Alms were
given to the church authorities, who then distributed them as they saw fit. The dissolution of the
monasteries and the coming of the Reformation, however, changed this situation, and it became
necessary to find a general way of both giving and collecting alms. In an attempt to restrict the receipt
of alms to those incapable of work, magistrates were authorised in 1531 to grant licences entitling
deserving individulas to beg, but within strictly defined limits.9

Until 1563, almsgiving remained voluntary, although some attempt was made to encourage people
to give more freely, but only via an alms box in each church, private almsgiving incurring stringent
penalties. Under the 1536 Act, for example, the clergy were asked to encourage almsgiving by
exhortations.10 In 1563, however, the need for compulsory almsgiving was admitted in legislation.11
A person was expected to give if he was able. If he refused, he was liable to appear before the bishop,
then, if he continued to refuse, the Justices. In 1572 this need for compulsory almsgiving was finally
codified and an organisation for its collection and disbursement was set up. 12 The Justices were to
compile a register of the ‘impotent [helpless] and aged poor’ in each parish in order to determine the
cost of maintaining them. They were then ‘to tax and assess the inhabitants, and appoint collectors of
this weekly rate, along with Overseers of the Poor’.13 Refusal to pay could be met with imprisonment.

The legal situation concerning rates was confirmed by the Elizabethan Poor Law Act of 1601.14 This
Act was a codification of earlier laws, including the Act of 1597-98.15 It was to become the basis for
rating until 1834. Under this Act, the relief of the poor was placed in the hands of the churchwardens
and up to four overseers of the poor, appointed annually at Easter by the Justices. The necessary funds
to assist the poor, impotent, unemployed and orphans were to be raised by a tax on every inhabitant
and occupier of houses or land. Each property was assigned a rateable value – the notional income that
could be generated by the property owner if the property were to be let out for a year. This valuation
was to be made by the parish officers and approved by two Justices, and individuals could lodge an
appeal at the local Quarter Sessions.

The parish officers calculated the rate required to generate the necessary sum to cover the expected
expenses of providing poor relief for the next few months. They then drew up an assessment of each
occupier’s rate liability by multiplying each property’s rateable value by the rate set for the current
rating period. For example, a house with a rateable value of £20 and a rate set at 1 shilling in the pound
would result in a rate liability of 20 shillings (= £1).

PERSONNEL

This poor relief was organised through the meetings of the Vestry. As W E Tate pointed out in his
classic work The Parish Chest, this institution dealt with ‘every aspect of parish life and communal
affairs’.16 The chairman of the Vestry was always the minister of the parish – at Morden the Revd
Thomas Robson (1744-1778) followed by the Revd Dr John Witherington Peers (1778-1835).

As far as poor relief was concerned, the parish officers involved were the churchwardens, the overseers
of the poor and the vestry clerk. The office of overseer was created by the Act of 1572 and they soon
became the principal officers of a parish. In Morden the overseers, usually two in number, were
nominated annually in the month of March or April, as in March 1788 when Francis Howard and
Edward Martin were appointed.17 Not everyone, however, wished to serve as an officer of the parish.
In 1795 the Vestry in Morden resolved that ‘any person being chosen to serve the office of overseer of
the poor or churchwarden in this parish, and not personally serving the same is to forfeit and pay the
sum of five pounds into the hands of the officers of this parish to be applied by them to such purposes
as they shall think most proper for the benefit of the whole parish’.18 In 1804 the forfeit was raised to
£10, and in 1809 the Jewish financier, Abraham Goldsmid, chose to pay the fine.19

Assessment list 12 June 1756 – SHC 2065/4/1 (6)

However, on 3 April 1817 Morden Vestry decided ‘that a person be appointed to serve the office of
overseer regularly and yearly and that the sum of £20 per annum be allowed the same person as a salary
for his trouble and Mr William Acres was nominated and approved as a proper person to fill up and
execute such office of perpetual overseer’. He remained in post for several years.20 This sum was increased
to £30 a year in 1828 when Philip Puttock threatened to resign his office, but in 1829 he declined re-
election and it was reduced to £25 a year.21 Acres was a builder and Puttock a wheelwright – respectable
artisans, appointed to relieve the gentlemen of the Vestry of the arduous task of dealing with the day-
to-day running of the system, while leaving them the privilege of making overall policy. Tate describes
such appointments as being assistant overseers, and explains that they were given legal status in 1819.22

On 5 August 1819 the Vestry took advantage of powers under the Poor Law Amendment Act to
nominate a committee, otherwise known as a ‘Select Vestry’, to manage the regular supervision of
parish affairs, a full General Vestry only being called occasionally.23 Meetings were usually arranged
fortnightly, though between February 1824 and December 1825 the minutes record for all but three
sessions ‘No attendance given this day’, though a General Vestry was held on 7 October 1824 to fix
the poor rate and agree nominations for parish officers.24 The parish then reverted to General Vestry
meetings, held six to eight times a year. In all but these two years, the appointment of parish officers
and the overall management by the Vestry were well organised.

PROPERTY VALUATIONS

Most of Morden’s inhabitants rented their homes and land from the owners of the two large estates
within the parish, the manors of Morden and Ravensbury, though there were some other freehold
properties and a few copyhold cottages. The first assessment that we have is from 12 June, presumably
1756, and lists 53 inhabitants, 7 of whom were each assessed on two properties (see image opposite).25
By June 1780 there were still only 55 inhabitants assessed in the rate books, but by October 1824, 92
inhabitants are listed for assessment.26 In June 1780 the majority (32) were assessed on a rental value of
less than £20 pa., a further 10 people were assessed on a rental value of less that £50 pa., leaving only
13 people assessed on a rental value of between £50 and £143 each. This means that the majority of the
rates were paid by fewer than half of the ratepayers.

Naturally, these higher assessments in 1780 were for the greater men of the district, and their properties
can be identified from the contemporary land tax records. Thus, the rector of Morden, the Revd Dr J
W Peers, was assessed on £135, probably including his tithe income – the parsonage [47] was occupied
by Mr Allen – while the overseer, Richard Garth Esq, who was also lord of the manor of Morden, was
assessed on £84 for Morden Hall [1].27 The two military gentleman of the district were also assessed
on high rental values: The Hon. General Taylor on £62 rental value for a farm in Lower Morden [15]
and a wood [12], though his main estate was at Cannon Hill in neighbouring Merton parish, and
Admiral Arbuthnot on £55 for the Ravensbury lands within Morden [49-51] leased with the Manor
House across the Wandle in Mitcham parish. Lord Loughborough, who one might expect to have
been subject to a higher valuation, was only assessed on £23 as his estate also was mainly across the
parish boundary in Mitcham and only included some 17½ acres within Morden parish. The tenants
of other large freehold properties included Mr Gasson at the property later known as Hazelwood
[62] assessed on £60, Mr Grosett at Spital, later The Lodge [57], on £72, Mr Beech at Growtes, later
Morden Lodge [46], on £100. One can thus see who held the largest houses and estates in the parish.
However, tenants of the large farms were also assessed on high rental values: the unnamed tenant of
the farm run from Morden House [8] on £62, Richard Mills on £78 for the later Lower Morden Farm
[68], William Bryant/Bryon on £91 for the later Peacock Farm [16], John Ewart on £126 for Morden
Park [11], and Christopher Chambers on £143 for two properties – Ravensbury Farm, also known as
Stelehawes [55],28 and the farm run from the later Hill House [13]. The proprietor of the Morden Hall
snuff mills [2], Nathaniel Polhill, was assessed on £63, though Martin Pearkes at Ravensbury mill [54]
was only assessed on £45, the mill standing astride the river where it forms the parish boundary, so
Morden only assessed him on that part within the parish, Mitcham assessing him on the other part.

General revisions of the valuations took place every few years and by June 1788 several smaller rental
values had increased by a pound or two, while those of larger properties had increased even more,
though some had decreased. Leases were often of 21 years or so, and rented properties therefore
changed hands frequently. The lands leased to a new tenant might not be identical to those held by a
predecessor, so slight changes in the property values are not unusual.

In June 1780 the total valuation of the parish had been £1,604, but by 1788 this had risen to £1,779,
on 66 properties.29 However, only 57 individuals were assessed, 30 at less than £20, a further 14 at
between £20 and £50, and 13 at over £50. In addition, John Martin and William Acres were listed but
had the comment ‘Excd’ alongside, meaning they were excused assessment, while Edward Martin’s
entry had the comment ’empty’, with no assessment. The total sum raised, however, was less than in
1780, as the rate had been lowered from 1s to 7d in the pound. Thus in June 1788 only £51 17s 9d was
raised, compared with £80 4s 0d in June 1780.

In 1780 the highest valuation was £143, for the two properties held by Christopher Chambers, but in
1788 it was £100 for Joseph Wright of Spital [57], Chambers now only leasing the Hill House property
[13]. However, some who had earlier been assessed on the combined value of their properties now
had them valued separately. Thus Edward Polhill was assessed on three separate properties with a
total rental value of £192, having leased Ewart’s Morden Park estate. Dantony Angell, now occupying
Ravensbury Farm/Stelehawes [55], assessed on £60, was further assessed on £28 for land ‘late Polhill’,
perhaps part of the Morden Park estate. William Shord, who had taken on the lease of the Morden
House farm [8] assessed on £88, was further assessed on £27 for ‘part of Mr Polhill’s’, as was Edmund
Bryon, assessed on £28 for land ‘late Polhill’, in addition to £63 for his farm [16] and £47 for part of
General Taylor’s former farm [15], Richard Mills being assessed on a further £24 for another part, in
addition to £74 for his own farm [68]. Taylor’s farmhouse, leased separately to an unnamed tenant,
was assessed on £8. One of the overseers for the previous year, William Packwood, was also assessed
on two smaller properties – £11 on one of them plus £3 for a cottage, neither now identifiable.

On 22 March 1810 a general meeting of the parish was called because a number of people were
‘aggrieved by the present mode of assessing the poor rate’.30 The meeting considered the possibility
of ‘a just and equitable survey of the Parish’. A new valuation was to be made ‘by the inhabitants and
landholders according to the present value of houses and land’. On 2 April a committee was appointed to
consider this new valuation, consisting of the Rector, the Revd Dr J W Peers, and seven parishioners –
Henry Hoare Esq., George Ridge Esq., Lancelot Chambers Esq., Charles Rooke Esq., Edward White, J W
Atkinson and John Gurney – and at a Vestry on 9 April 1810 the valuation proposed by this committee
was accepted.31

Thus by April 1812, the total valuation had increased considerably, to £3,012, though the total number
of people assessed had only increased slightly to 62.32 Of these, 36 were assessed on less than £20, 10
on £20 to £50, and 16 on more than £50. In fact, twelve individuals were assessed on £100 or more
each, compared with four in 1788. Although the smaller properties remained at £3, £4 or £6, the rental
value of the larger properties had again increased. ‘Esq. Ridge’ of Morden Park [11] for example, was
assessed on £405 and G M Hoare Esq. on £243 for the Spital estate [57]. Edward White was assessed on
three properties, £167 on the property he had held previously (probably Ravensbury Farm/Stelehawes
[55]), £65 on a property late Rook and £8 on land also late Rook (neither definitely identified but
possibly the later Hazelwood estate [61]), making a total of £240. The rate was again at 1 shilling in the
pound and the total sum paid had risen to £150 13s 0d. On 30 June 1814 a further disagreement arose
over the method of assessment. A Vestry was suggested, but not mentioned again.33

In addition to Poor Law administration, the parish officers were also responsible for assessing liability
for national taxes such as the window tax, and we have an opportunity to compare the two assessments
in order to identify the liablity of the poorest inhabitants. At a Vestry meeting on 31 August 1819
the officers were required ‘to take into consideration the ability of the poor persons charged with

the window tax to pay the same’.34 It was ‘agreed that 44 poor cottagers who stand charged in the
assessment on windows be excused from paying the same, a certificate being about to be filled up
for that purpose’. The names of these 44 cottagers were listed in the vestry book on 9 September, and
only 12 of these appear in the poor rate assessment list for 21 September 1819, revealing that 32 of
the poorest inhabitants were not then charged poor rates.35 However, a further 19 of them were added
on 10 August 1820 when it was agreed that ‘all lands and tenements not at present rated be assessed
from this day at the sum of £4 rental on each occupier’.36 Thus a greater number of the less wealthy
inhabitants were to be assessed for poor rates, though 13 were still exempt.

By October 1824 the number of properties assessed had increased to 92, over half of which were
assessed on less than £10 each.37 Although some of the larger farms had added extra land over the years,
these had become assessed as single units, and only one person, John Tyrrell, a local industrialist,38 was
assessed on more than one property: on £152 (for Morden Hall [1]), £90 for ‘late Goldsmid’ (the later
Hazelwood estate [61]), £50 for ‘late Popendike’ (Ducket’s Farm [9]), and £20 for unspecified ‘land and
gardens’. The rate was 2s 6d in the pound and raised £413 on a total valuation of £3304 on 91 properties.

Only partial records survive thereafter until June 1828, by which time the total valuation was only
£1921 on 115 properties. The total valuation for May 1833 was the only one within the remainder of our
period to exceed £2000, by just £44.39 This was as a result of another new survey of the parish, made by Mr
Bowcher (tenant of The Laurels in Central Road [64]), with the assistance of other inhabitants. Their report
was finally amended and agreed on 12 June 1828. The new assessment was to be as follows:40

Arable land in Lower Morden 20s per acre. Meadow land in Lower Morden 40s per acre.

Arable land in Upper Morden 24s per acre. Meadow land in Upper Morden 40s per acre.

This is the only occasion when the basis of land valuation is explained, but on some properties this
reassessment reduced land values by a third, necessarily leading to higher rates being applied to rich
and poor alike in order to produce the revenue required.

We learn from various of the Morden documents the type of property on which the rates were assessed.
The rate book for 26 June 1780 tells us that Mr Allen was assessed on £25 for the Parsonage and
William Martin senior was assessed on £4 for a field.

The rate list for 1 February 1816, however, gives more information on the properties than other lists
(see Appendix I page 49).41 Most of the properties assessed on a low amount were generally classified
as cottages. William Dearlove, for example, was assessed on £4 for his cottage [89] and Jonathan Acres
senior was assessed on £6 for his cottage [21]. The shop property of Morden – which covered both
workshops and retail – was assessed on slightly higher rental values than the cottages. These shops were
also assessed on different values, as would be expected, depending on their size and use. Philip Puttock’s
wheelwright’s workshop [70], for example, was assessed on £20, William Marchant’s blacksmith’s shop
[31] on £15, Francis Howard’s shop [71] on £12, while Thomas Marchant’s unidentified shop was
assessed on only £10. (On 19 December 1816 Thomas was excused his poor rate arrears, ‘his family
being large and having suffered greatly from losses in his business as a shop keeper’.42) Jonathan Acres
Junior was assessed for shop and cottage in Lower Morden [93-94], together assessed on £20. The
highest assessments made on property in Morden were on land, farms and houses. George Ridge of
Morden Park [11] had the highest assessment, on £405 for house and farm. George M Hoare was assessed
on £243 for his farm [57] and Edward White on £73 for his land and house (presumably the unidentified
property formerly occupied by Charles Rook, as Bernard Vansandau was now at Ravensbury Farm/
Stelehawes [55]). Among the other kinds of property listed were two inns [39] [66], a market garden [4],
an orchard, and two mills. The Morden Hall snuff mills [2] were in the occupation of Edward Polhill
Esq., assessed on £120, while the Morden section of Ravensbury mills [54], in the occupation of John
Rutter, was assessed on £72. Various references in the vestry books, mainly relating to the reassessment
of rates, also indicate the type of property assessed. On 9 April 1818, for example, we learn that Mr
[William] Marchant’s assessment on his cottages and meadows was reduced.43

Frequency of rating, dates and rates set, overall annual percentage of assessments charged and total levied 1756-1834

Account Year

1st rate

2nd rate

3rd rate

4th rate

% p.a

TOTAL

1756

–

1757

12-Jun

28-Aug

28-Mar

7.50%

£68

1757

–

1758

13-May

03-Oct

Not stated

12.50%

£114

1758

–

1759

30-Jun

02-Feb

10.83%

£100

1759

–

1760

17-May

02-Nov

Not stated

12.08%

£124

1760

–

1761

09-May

12-Jul

27-Feb

7.50%

£104

1761

–

1762

04-May

06-Nov

7.50%

£104

1762

–

1763

07-May

09-Dec

10.00%

£139

1763

–

1764

04-Aug

02-Mar

7.50%

£105

1764

–

1765

24-May

13-Dec

10.00%

£139

1765

–

1766

10-May

01-Nov

27-Mar

11.67%

£164

1766

–

1767

12-Apr

10-Oct

11.67%

£166

1767

–

1768

25-May

19-Nov

10.00%

£145

1768

–

1769

22-Apr

27-Oct

10.00%

£146

1769

–

1770

14-Apr

10-Aug

09-Jan

15.00%

£223

1770

–

1771

01-Jun

10-Jan

10.00%

£152

1771

–

1772

18-Jun

28-Dec

10.00%

£156

1772

–

1773

02-May

27-Sep

28-Dec

15.00%

£234

1773

–

1774

20-May

04-Nov

15.00%

£239

1774

–

1775

23-Apr

17-Sep

05-Feb

15.00%

£241

1775

–

1776

24-May

28-Jan

12.50%

£200

1776

–

1777

11-May

12-Nov

12.50%

£199

1777

–

1778

24-Apr

06-Sep

28-Mar

13.75%

£218

1778

–

1779

20-May

12-Sep

29-Dec

15.00%

£237

1779

–

1780

12-Jun

20-Sep

28-Jan

15.00%

£240

1780

–

1781

26-Jun

01-Nov

03-Mar

15.00%

£243

1781

–

1782

26-May

15-Sep

24-Jan

13 Mar

14.17%

£217

1782

–

1783

21-Jun

19-Sep

17-Dec

22 Mar

17.50%

£260

1783

–

1784

10-Jun

12-Sep

05-Jan

17.50%

£265

1784

–

1785

23-Jun

29-Dec

19-Mar

12.50%

£190

1785

–

1786

30-May

07-Dec

13.75%

£214

1786

–

1787

12-Jun

22-Sep

05-Dec

14 Apr

13.75%

£218

1787

–

1788

13-Jun

19-Sep

13-Dec

06 Mar

11.67%

£207

1788

–

1789

17-Jun

16-Sep

18-Dec

03-Mar

12.08%

£219

1789

–

1790

14-May

07-Sep

10-Dec

04 Mar

11.25%

£221

8¼

1790

–

1791

03-Jun

9-Sep

02-Dec

10 Mar

10.00%

£200

1791

–

1792

16-Jun

22-Sep

23-Dec

22 Mar

12.50%

£250

1792

–

1793

07-Jun

21-Sep

27-Dec

14 Mar

12.92%

£263

8½

1793

–

1794

05-May

19-Sep

19-Dec

20 Mar

13.75%

£287

2½

1794

–

1795

26-Jun

21-Aug

27-Nov

06 Mar

13.33%

£277

1795

–

1796

11-Jun

17-Sep

26-Nov

03 Mar

15.00%

£318

10½

1796

–

1797

16-Jun

08-Sep

08-Dec

09 Mar

18.75%

£406

5½

1797

–

1798

12-Jun

07-Sep

06-Dec

08 Mar

17.08%

£367

0½

1798

–

1799

16-May

06-Sep

16-Dec

14 Mar

17.92%

£381

1799

–

1800

20-Jun

29-Aug

05-Dec

13 Mar

15.00%

£326

1800

–

1801

22-May

31-Jul

13-Nov

26 Feb

20.00%

£434

6½

1801

–

1802

07-May

23-Jul

15-Oct

21 Jan

22.50%

£500

8½

1802

–

1803

17-Jun

16-Sep

09-Dec

10 Mar

22.50%

£512

1803

–

1804

09-Jun

14-Sep

23-Feb

16.25%

£367

1½

1804

–

1805

04-Jun

20-Sep

20-Dec

22 Mar

20.00%

£432

10½

1805

–

1806

09-May

22-Aug

12-Dec

06 Mar

20.00%

£442

1806

–

1807

29-May

09-Oct

31-Dec

18 Mar

23.75%

£537

1807

–

1808

21-May

18-Sep

15-Jan

31 Mar

22.50%

£522

1808

–

1809

22-Jun

06-Oct

12-Jan

21 Mar

20.00%

£480

1809

–

1810

11-Aug

01-Mar

17.50%

£427

1810

–

1811

14-Jun

16-Aug

15-Nov

28 Feb

20.42%

£612

1811

–

1812

20-Jun

05-Sep

08-Dec

17.50%

£524

1812

–

1813

23-Apr

23-Jul

19-Nov

14 Mar

17.50%

£531

1813

–

1814

06-May

01-Jul

30-Sep

06 Jan

22.50%

£674

1814

–

1815

21-Apr

20-Jul

31-Oct

05 Jan

20.00%

£614

1815

–

1816

20-Apr

20-Jul

26-Oct

01 Feb

22.50%

£684

1816

–

1817

18-Apr

27-Jun

26-Sep

12 Dec

25.00%

£723

1817

–

1818

10-Apr

24-Jun

03-Oct

18 Dec

27.50%

£793

1818

–

1819

09-Apr

20-Jul

24-Sep

24 Jan

33.75%

£971

1819

–

1820

22-Apr

01-Jul

21-Sep

13 Jan

30.00%

£861

1820

–

1821

06-Apr

10-Aug

02-Nov

01 Mar

30.00%

£893

1821

–

1822

01-May

09-Aug

16-Nov

24 Jan

22.50%

£654

1822

–

1823

18-Apr

23-Aug

28-Nov

06 Feb

25.00%

£765

1823

–

1824

01-May

18-Sep

11-Dec

05 Mar

22.50%

£686

1824

–

1828

ONLY PARTIAL RECORDS SURVIVE

1828

–

1829

20-Jun

03-Sep

02-Jan

40.00%

£762

1829

–

1830

03-Apr

02-Jul

11-Dec

45.00%

£843

1830

–

1831

15-Apr

18-Jun

15-Oct

21-Jan

47.50%

£655

1831

–

1832

22-Apr

21-Jul

28-Oct

06-Jan

50.00%

£645

1832

–

1833

02-May

13-Jul

28-Sep

28-Dec

45.00%

£592

1833

–

1834

08-Mar

03-May

18-Oct

03-Jan

50.00%

£679

POOR RATES

The assessment of these properties for the poor rate was made at the order of the Vestry. The information
relating to the amount of rate passed, and when it was passed, is given in the vestry books of the period
as well as in the overseers’ accounts. These accounts ran from Lady Day (25 March) in one calendar
year to Lady Day the following year, and the first rate could be set at any time between Lady Day and
Midsummer (24 June), as can be seen from the table opposite. From 1786 onwards it was normal to set
four rates in an accounting year, covering the period up to each of the four quarter days – Midsummer,
Michaelmas (29 September), Christmas and Lady Day – but in earlier years it was more common to
set just three rates and sometimes only two, and there are occasional years thereafter that depart from
the norm. Thus in 1803-4 only three rates were set, a double rate at 19d in the pound being set in
February 1804 to make up for a rate not having been set before Christmas. In 1809-10 only two rates
were set, both higher than average, while in 1811-12 a double rate was set in December and none in
the following quarter. It was not unknown for the final quarter’s rate to be agreed after Lady Day – in
1787 as late as 14 April – and similar delays can be seen for other quarters.

There was also considerable variety in the level of the rates set within a single year, though there is surprising
regularity in the total percentage rate paid over a series of years. Morden’s economy was essentially an
agrarian one, and the level of needs would fluctuate across the seasons, with the greater demand for
agricultural labour around haymaking and harvest times improving employment prospects of would-
be labourers, whereas poor harvests would result in higher food prices. The cash flow of the wealthier
inhabitants was also in great part dependent on agricultural income, not only for tenants of substantial
farms directly involved in production but also the landlords whose main source of income was the rents of
tenants or under-tenants. Thus it is not surprising that seasonal fluctuations in poor rates can be detected.

But there were also fluctuations from year to year in the total percentage charged on the assessed rateable
values of properties. Until 1800 the overall annual poor rate bill ranged between 7.5% and 18.75% of
the rateable values, with 15% being the most common. After 1800 the figure was seldom less than
20% and in 1818-19 rose to 33.75%. When one remembers that parishioners were also liable for local
church rates and highway rates and tithes on crops, as well as national taxations such as the land tax and
window tax, the burden could become quite substantial. This was especially so in the late 1820s and
early 1830s when, as noted above, land values had fallen dramatically and annual rates ranged from 45%
to 50% of these low valuations and even then failed to raise sums comparable to those in previous years.

A further complication was that, although these rates were agreed, not all were collected. The rate books
list not only those who were assessed, and the amounts they were assessed for, but also the amount which
remained uncollected. In the accounting year 1786-87 the four quarterly rates ought to have raised £218 6s
9d in total. There was, however, a total deficit of £9 10s 3d, and none of those people who owed the arrears
had been excused payment.44 In the following year, the deficit amounted to only £2 15s 10d, and part of
the previous year’s deficit, £5 10s 9d, was paid.45 This payment of arrears was not apparently the result of
reminders by the Vestry, unlike on 25 September 1807, when a General Vestry was called concerning rate
arrears. In the year 1817, the Vestry was evidently concerned about arrears. On 20 March of that year the
overseer was instructed ‘to make known to the persons in arrears that if such arrears are not paid before
Saturday 29th inst. that the magistrates will be applied to for summonses, to enable the overseers to proceed
according to the law’.46 Later, on 15 June 1818, although a rate was agreed, it was postponed for a fortnight
‘that the arrears of the last rate might be collected’.47 Thus we can see that the overseers had considerable
difficulty in collecting all the rates, and relied on orders from the Vestry and on the threat of legal action.

There are various mentions, both in the rate books and the vestry books, of individuals who refused to pay
their rates. There were occasions when legal action was necessary against individuals. On 14 July 1830, a
warrant of distress was put in force against James Whitbread Atkinson (then tenant of the later Peacock
Farm [16]) for the payment of arrears amounting to £74. Earlier, on 19 May 1814, summonses had been
taken out against several inhabitants of Morden for refusing to pay the assessments. Six inhabitants had
refused to comply with the order of the magistrates at Croydon. They were: William Marchant [31]

who owed £4 10s, Benjamin Poulter [36] who owed 18s, Peter More [?] who owed 18s, John Holliday
[83] who owed £1 16s, Edward Westwood [88] who owed 18s, and William Gilbert [85] who owed £1
11s 6d – a total of £10 11s 6d. The overseer was ordered ‘to make use of such legal measures as shall
enforce the payment of the respective sums due to the parish from the above mentioned persons’.48 (The
identification of cottage properties is not easy, as not everyone – Peter More for example – is listed in
the contemporary Land Tax records, and it was also common for people to move according to changing
circumstances, but the identification codes given here are based on the limited evidence available.)

There were also occasions when individuals were unable to pay the rates. In these situations, the parish
often helped. On 23 December 1791, for example, John Martin [28, 37] owed £2 11s 8d in arrears of
rates. The parish agreed to pay half of the amount, on condition that John paid the rest. On 4 June 1828
Mrs Carpenter [91?] asked to be excused from paying her rates, because of poverty. 49 She was excused
her present payments, but was expected to pay in the future. She had been appointed to the vacant
position of pew-opener at the church on 28 May at a salary of £2 2s a year.50

However, some individuals who asked for help to pay their rates were refused by the Vestry. On 26
March 1828, John Price [?] asked if he could be excused his arrears.51 This was refused, though no
reason was ever given for such refusals.

There were occasions when a person was assessed for rates, but was excused before payment was necessary.
As we have seen, in 1788 John Martin [28, 37] and William Acres [?] were excused, their names being
in the rate book with the note ‘Excd’, but no assessment was entered. The same happened again in 1790,
when Richard Martin [?], John Batter [34] and William Robinson [43] were excused.52 In July 1815,
however, a number of people were omitted from the main assessment and listed at the end of the account
as excused, together with a note of each assessment: Knight [28] £4, Poulter [36] £4, J Biggs [26?] £5, N
Biggs [74] £8, Ball [71?] £5, Moore [?] £4, Carpenter [91] £3, and Hopper [?] £4.53

A further problem concerned with rating was that of appeals against the assessment. Individual
complaints were made throughout the period of this study. It is unclear whether these complaints were
made by the individual whose assessment was involved, or by a fellow inhabitant who was perhaps
jealous, or by a parish official. In July 1790, it was unanimously agreed that Mr Angel was ‘to be assessed
on £75 per annum for his farm at Morden and no more’.54 He had previously been assessed on £80 for
Ravensbury Farm/Stelehawes [55] so it seems likely that he had been the one to make the complaint.

On 16 August 1810, it was agreed ‘that Mr Morton’s arrears of poor rates to Lady Day be collected after
the rate of assessment of £113 per annum, it being considered the rate after which he was assessed was
not exactly proportionate to others’.55 In March of that year his assessment on the later Lower Morden
Farm [18] had been £125, but by June it had fallen to £113, whereas other assessments had increased
as a result of the new valuation, so it would appear that the complaint came from Mr Morton.56 On
19 October 1820, Samuel Cleverly [87] was excused payment of his rates to 20 August because he had
been ‘rated at £4 when his rent only amounts to £3 3s 0d’.57

We do know of an occasion when there were increases in particular valuations – in May 1832, Messrs
Taddy’s Snuff Mills at Morden Hall [2] were in future to be rated on £250 instead of £80 as previously,
Mr Ball of the Plough beershop in Central Road [71] on £15 instead of £3 and Mr Potterton of the Sheep
Shearers in Lower Morden [93, 94] on £8 instead of £1.58 Although no reason was given for these increases,
it would appear that the valuations of business properties were considered to have been too low. The
two beerhouses had been opened alongside the shops mentioned earlier, following the passing of the
Beerhouse Act of 1830, which sought to encourage people to drink beer instead of strong spirits, as it was
considered ‘expedient for the better supplying the public with Beer in England, to give greater facilities for
the sale thereof, than was then afforded by licences to keepers of Inns, Alehouses, and Victualling Houses’.59

Raising funds for assisting the poor was far from a simple procedure. It involved finding the best
method of assessment, then the complications of collection and the problem of rate arrears.
However, the parish officers continued their work, in spite of mounting difficulties.

CHAPTER 2: OUTDOOR RELIEF

Once the funds for assisting the poor had been collected, the overseers of Morden used a number
of means to assist the poor, in each case taking note of the individual circumstances. One was the
establishment of a workhouse, which will be dealt with in the following chapter. This chapter focuses
on the various forms of poor relief made available outside the workhouse, known as ‘outdoor’ relief.

PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT

One of the methods used was to provide work for those who wanted to work, but could not find
employment. The provision of work for such as these had been recognised in the 16th-century
legislation. The Act of 1575-6 ordered that stocks of wool, hemp, flax and ‘other stuff’ should be
provided for ‘poor and needy persons being willing to labour’.60 The same legislation was then repeated
under the great Poor Law Act of 1601.61

In 1627, early in the reign of Charles I, further legislation allowed the overseers of the poor to set up any
trade for employing the poor.62 In 1782, however, an Act for the better Relief and Employment of the
Poor, known as Gilbert’s Act after its sponsor Thomas Gilbert, required that work should be provided
for the able-bodied poor outside the workhouse. It was with this legal background that the overseers of
Morden sought to provide work for their able-bodied poor. The provisions made can be divided into
three groups: the apprenticing of the young, the placing of individuals in private households, and the
provision of labour for the able-bodied men.

It was the last group with which the officers were most concerned, for, needless to say, they were the
majority. Throughout this period, there were numerous applications for work or relief. As ordered
under Gilbert’s Act, the parish provided work, and one method used in Morden was to put the poor
to work on the roads.

Parishioners had long been required to maintain the highways, and a surveyor of the highways was
appointed by the Justices each year from a list of nominations submitted by the parish. The manorial
court roll for 26 September 1592 refers to landholders being required to provide men and a team (horse
and cart) ‘to repair and mend the royal road leading from market town to market town within the
precinct of this view at any day of the six separate days proposed’.63 On 2 December 1809 the Vestry made
a similar ruling, but with a cash alternative – ‘That every occupier of land send one team for six days for
every fifty pounds paid, or pay to the surveyor for the time being twelve shillings for every day he omits
so doing. That for every sum above fifty pounds and under one hundred and so on in proportion, for
every sum under fifty pounds each occupier of land pay nine pence for each pound so above and under
fifty. That for every one horse cart kept in the parish the sum of twelve shillings be paid annually to the
surveyor.’64 A similar, though less complex, order of 1 February 1816 relating to this ‘Statute Labour’ is to
be found at the back of the vestry book for 1817 to 1825.65 On 15 September 1828 the Vestry ordered ‘that
application be made to those persons who are defaulters in the Highway Composition for an immediate
payment of the same and in case of refusal that summonses be issued against such defaulters’.66 No doubt
it was this money that was used to pay the paupers employed on the roads.

Thus on 24 January 1822 ‘Henry Robinson applied for work – ordered that he be employed on the
roads and have 5s in money and bread from Mr Cumberpatch [the overseer] to the same amount’.67
On 12 December 1822 it was decided by the Vestry that the rate of pay for roadmen was to be only 9d a
day in future.68 On 16 April 1827 it was announced that ‘all paupers applying to the overseer for work,
to be employed in fetching gravel from the gravel pits on Mitcham Common, and that they deposit the
gravel by the side of the High Road under Mr Chambers’ pailes’ [his fence of wooden stakes].69 At the
same time, the rate of pay was given – unmarried men were to receive 6d a bushel, married men 7d, 8d
or 9d a bushel, ‘according to the number in their respective families at the discretion of the overseer’. It
was further ordered that the quantity brought by each person was to be measured at least once a week,
and that they be paid accordingly. A month later, however, on 17 May, this rate was drastically cut to
3d a bushel for unmarried men and 4½d for married men, unless their family exceeded six – then 6d
was to be given.70

Another means of employment was announced on 24 December 1828 – that ‘three or more efficient
persons chargeable to the parish, and applying for work, be employed as watchmen, and that they be
paid out of the poor rates’.71 The duties of these watchmen, presumably nocturnal, were to be arranged
and superintended by a committee of five of the inhabitants.

The overseers’ accounts also have numerous references to payments to individuals for work.
Unfortunately, these references do not state exactly what the work is. On 7 June 1828 H Cleverly was
paid 12s 6d for five weeks’ pay.72 From February to December 1826 there are several entries for payment
for work to William Cleverly and Dearlove.73 The overseer was expected to find, or try to find, other
employment for individuals. On 19 November 1828, John Skilton, Charles Treacher and James Bond
each applied for work. It was stated in the vestry minutes that ‘the overseer to find employment’.74

Morden was thus very conscientious in seeking to provide work for the able-bodied poor, but the
provision was somewhat costly. In the first three months of 1829, for example, there were weekly
payments of £2 16s to four unnamed watchmen.75 These were presumably those required in December
1828. Payment for the gravel men is also listed. The weekly payments for May 1827 vary from £1 2s
to 12s 4d.76 These variations could be due to the fact that there were fewer men working, or that they
were not working so hard. It is difficult to relate this to the reduction in the rate of payment ordered
in May 1827, for the larger sums are paid at the time when the reduced payments should have been in
effect. It is possible that the reduction in the rate of payment enabled the employment of more men.

The parish also assisted the poor with work by providing tools and materials. One parishioner, John
Boys, was described in November 1826 as ‘a shoemaker by trade and is supposed able to provide for
family if industrious, that in the event of his not having work at his trade, the overseer of the parish will
provide him work when applied for and pay 1s 6d per day’, the family already receiving seven loaves
of bread a week and 3s 4d towards rent.77 His wife had applied for relief on 12 February 1824 and was
granted 10s but the overseer was ordered ‘to provide some leather for her husband to furnish himself

North-east view of St Lawrence church before the construction of the vestry in 1805,

showing the condition of London Road and the sawpit on ground adjoining the churchyard.

Watercolour now in the possession of the church and reproduced by kind permission.

with the means of working again at his trade’.78 There are many entries in the overseers’ accounts of
payments to him for leather.79 The vestry minutes also record such grants – on 20 May 1829 the Vestry
lent him £3 0s 6d to purchase leather, to be repaid to the parish at 2s a week.80 Again, on 4 April 1831
the Vestry ‘agreed to advance John Boys £5 for the purchase of leather to be repaid to the overseer by
monthly payments of 12s, the first instalment to take place on the 19th of May 1831’.81 In addition he
was ‘required to keep and render account from time to time of the leather purchased and the work
done and to give the account to the overseer’, so it is likely that the parish ordered shoes from him as
well as from other shoemakers. On 6 February 1828 Frances Boys applied for shoes for her children
but the overseer was ordered ‘to furnish her with leather for making them shoes’, though three days
later the Overseers’ Accounts record a payment of £2 4s to John Boys ‘for shoes for all his family’.82

It was not on every occasion, however, that work was provided when asked. When Elizabeth Reed
applied for work on 6 May 1829 she was ‘ordered to seek for work’, but when George Carpenter applied
for ‘relief or employment’ in January 1831, he was granted 10s a week ‘temporary relief’.83 Some who
sought employment were refused, as in the case of the son of John Clark on 18 February 1829.84 No
reason was ever given, but possibly in this case it was because he was too young. On some occasions,
those seeking work were instead ordered to the workhouse. This happened in the case of George and
Henry Treacher on 24 March 1827.85 Again no reason was given, but other evidence shows that they
were then both under 21, as specifically stated about Henry on 19 November 1828, his father therefore
being responsible for his support.86 On 1 August 1812 a removal order had been obtained by Mitcham
parish to send the family back to Morden and the ages of all the children were given.87 At that time
George was 5 and Henry 2, so they would have been about 20 and 17 in 1827. But it is still unclear why
they were ordered to the workhouse – unless the parents were also there at that time. However, on 21
April 1828, Henry Treacher, applying for relief, was ordered to be employed on the roads, so his age
was no longer considered a barrier.88

In December 1817, at a General Vestry meeting, it was agreed ‘that such persons who apply for relief in
consequence of not being able to get work shall be employed by the parishioners and that one half of
the amount of wages paid by them shall be set off against their Poor Rate’.89 This was the introduction in
Morden of a widely used method known as the roundsman system, which took many forms. The most
common was the one used in Morden whereby local farmers provided one or two days employment a
week, the parish subsidising the wages.90 Thus on 18 November 1819 the following memorandum was
included in the vestry minutes:91

Memorandum respecting Rounds Men

Order

1 Messrs Hammond 1 day

3 Atkinson 2 days

4 Aspin 2 days

5 Chambers 1 day

6 Hoare 2 days

7 Rose 1 day

8 Sherwood 2 days

2 Ridge 2 days

Long before this, Morden’s inhabitants had employed paupers as servants, the parish paying either
their wages or a grant towards clothing. On 30 July 1775, for example, William Martin agreed to have
Hannah Gillham as a servant. The parish was to allow him 2s a week for her, but Mr Martin was to
provide her clothes.92 In August 1775, John Martin agreed to have Thomas Lintote as his servant for
one year, the Vestry for their part agreeing that he would receive 40s to clothe Lintote.93A year later,
on 4 September 1776, Martin agreed to keep Lintote until Michaelmas (29 September), giving him his
board and a new pair of shoes.

Apprenticeship application for Robert Williams 15 December 1831 – SHC 2065/4/236

There are references much later in the period to individuals going into service, though there is seldom
any indication of whether or not their future employer was local. However, we are told on 19 January
1818 that Widow Skilton’s daughter was going into service at the Kings Arms, Rolls Buildings, Fetter
Lane, London.94 As with most such cases, the entry refers to her mother applying for money to buy her
clothes before she started work. Thus, on 6 February 1828, John Clark’s wife was granted a bonnet, a
pair of shoes and stockings, and linen for a gown for her daughter, who was entering service.95

APPRENTICESHIP

Another means of employment for the younger members of the community was apprenticeship. Care
was taken to ensure the child’s well-being. In 1801/2 an Act was passed concerning parish apprentices.96
In this Act their working hours were limited to 12 per day and no night work. There also had to be
adequate health provision, including separate night quarters for boys and girls and not more than two
children to a bed. The apprentices also had to be given some education, and they had to attend church.
Two Justices and a clergyman were to be appointed to monitor the implementation of this Act, which
was mainly a safeguard for children apprenticed in large numbers in factories. There is no evidence to
show that this was required in Morden, for there is no mention of children being sent as apprentices to
factories.

In Morden great care was taken over apprenticeship, unlike some cases mentioned by Tate, which
‘often consisted solely of a fiction convenient in disposing of a pauper child’ as a labourer or servant,
rather than giving training in a proper trade.97 In December 1771, an opportunity arose to apprentice
John Gillham to Mrs Sparrow of Sutton for five years.98 The parish was agreeable to this, but the
Justices were not. As a result, James was only allowed to become Mrs Sparrow’s servant.

In 1821 the opportunity arose in the parish for the apprenticeship of another boy, Chamberlain Gill,
‘suffering from a rupture making him incapable of undertaking any great exertion’.99 On 22 March the
Vestry considered a proposal from Messrs Walker and Son, tailors, offering to apprentice him as a
tailor for the premium of 25 guineas and £5 to clothe him. The parish, however, requested lower terms
and asked what security they could give. Mrs Walker attended the Vestry on 5 April with Gill and was
promised that Mr Hoare would write to her. The overseer was asked to investigate further on 17 May
and on 31 May it was reported that Mr Walker was ‘a person of respectable character’. On 14 June Mr
Walker attended the Vestry with a Samuel Garroad, his proposed security for the payment of half the
premium of 25 guineas. Mr Garroad, however, suggested that, rather than stand security to repay this
sum, he would undertake to take the boy as his own apprentice for the remainder of the agreed term in
the event that Mr Walker should die or become bankrupt. Mr Walker complained on 24 January 1822
that he had not received the apprenticeship indentures or his travel expenses ‘for several journeys to
Mitcham and Croydon’.100

Morden in turn provided apprenticeships to children from outside the parish. Among the parish papers
is a notification from the Directors of the Poor of the parish of St Pancras, Middlesex, of an application
to the Justices of the Peace for Surrey to be heard at 1.30pm on 19 December 1831 for one of their poor
children, Robert Williams, to be bound as an apprentice to Robert Williams of Morden, presumably a
relation (see image on facing page).101

WEEKLY RELIEF

Considerable sums were spent during a year on relief, paid in weekly allowances of money, food and
clothing. From April 1771 to April 1772 the sum of £79 19s was spent on ‘weekly payments’ to 11 individuals,
some for only 13 weeks but most for the whole year.102 In addition, £137 11s 8¾d was spent on ‘reliefs and
accidental charges’, though this included items purchased for the new workhouse, such as the £10 7s 0d
recorded on 11 July 1771 for ‘furnishing the Poor House’ (see image overleaf). In the month of April 1820
alone, the overseers’ account records expenditure of £34 2s 4d, though this included the monthly payment
of £15 paid to the master of the workhouse.103 At the Vestry held on 14 May 1821 a ‘pension list’ was
approved naming 15 persons and the pensions they were to receive each week, totalling 65s.104

‘Reliefs and accidental charges’, excluding ‘weekly payments’, 15 June to 27 November 1771 – SHC 2065/4/2 (14)

The amount paid out in money varied greatly, according to each individual case. At some Vestry
meetings, the Vestry as a whole considered the application for relief, while on other occasions it
was left to the discretion of the overseer. On 31 December 1821, for example, it was stated that
‘all applications for parish relief be disposed of at the discretion of Mr Cumberpatch (overseer)’.105

Not all the applications made to the parish were granted. On 31 December 1818 an application
made by Mr Sexton was dismissed despite the fact that he and his wife had been receiving relief
regularly for some time, and a year earlier, on 18 December 1817, had had their weekly allowance
raised from 2s to 8s until Lady Day 1818.106 No reason was given on this occasion, though this
was not so in all cases. When, on 4 April 1822, Mrs Young had her weekly allowance reduced
from 11s to 9s, the reason being given was that her eldest son was now working.107 Reasons
were sometimes given for increasing the allowance. On 1 November 1821 Mrs Caffin had her
allowance increased by 1s a week to 3s ‘during the winter quarter’ and the same increase for
63-year-old Mary Templeman on 18 December 1817 was also for the current quarter to Lady
Day – perhaps both increases were to cover heating costs.108 Widow Templeman received another
increase – of 6d a week – on 12 December 1822 ‘during the winter months’, on the same day that
Mrs Stevens’s allowance was increased to 2s 6d a week during the winter months ‘in consideration
of a complaint in her arm’.109

The applicants for relief varied greatly. Those seeking weekly allowances covered all family
groupings. The Sextons were not the only married couple who applied for aid – on 12 April 1819
William Gilbert (perhaps the master of the workhouse, though there were other Gilbert families
in the parish), received 21s relief and his wife was granted the services of Mrs Dell during her
confinement, the parish paying Mrs Dell 12s.110 Mrs Clark received similar help on 8 August
1827, while on 28 November 1827 Mrs Dearlove was advanced 7s ‘to enable her to have benefit
of the lyinge-in institution’.111 On the same day Thomas Smith and his wife were allowed 3s 6d a
week relief instead of 3s 1d, though no reason is given for their need. A common reason was of
course old age – John Latchford, on whose behalf an application for relief was successfully made
on 24 August 1820, was 85.112 On 12 April 1830 James Colly and his wife were given £1 ‘as present
relief’ and 2s a week because of their ‘great age’.113

Applications were also made by women with children to support. On 31 December 1818, Widow
Adams applied for aid for herself and her child, and was granted 3s a week for the child and 5s
for herself, the Vestry having just instructed her to obtain a certificate from the apothecary while
they attempted to discover who had instructed Mr Bartley [a Mitcham physician] to attend the
late John Adams, his bill for £2 18s 6d having been left to the Vestry to pay.114 But bereavement
was not the only reason given by women. On 19 October 1820 Elizabeth Clayton was granted 2s
a week ‘for the support of her child until her husband can be found’.115

There were not many occasions when help was sought by a family, here classified as two parents
with children. When applications were made which included aid for children, it was usually
because their father had died, as in the case of Mrs Adams, or disappeared, as with the Claytons,
or because their mother had died. This was true of Philip Tagg who, on 16 February 1819, was
given an increase to £1 ‘in consequence of the death of his wife’, leaving him to care for three
children.116 On 31 March 1830 Charles Phillips was allowed 3s ‘towards the support of 4 children
his wife having left him’.117 Most of the few occasions when a family did apply for aid were in
cases of illness or injury of the father. For example, on 19 January 1816 Jane Dearlove was given
5s relief ‘in consequence of her husband being unable to work for two weeks owing to an injury
in the hand’, while on the same day Isabelle Skilton, with four small children, was granted £1 ‘in
consequence of her husband’s illness’.118 Similarly, on 14 June 1821 Mrs Davis was given 10s ‘in
consequence of her husband having been disabled by an accident and prevented working for six
weeks’.119

When money was given as relief, it was not necessarily as a weekly allowance but as a single sum.
This often seems to have happened in the case of individual men, for example William Gilbert on 31
March 1777, who was ‘allowed in his present necessity half a guinea to support him’.120 In cases such
as these, the sum could be quite large, though sometimes it might be as low as 2s 6d or 1s. The weekly
allowances that were granted were almost always under 10s, it being very rare that they were over this
amount. The most common sum granted was between 2s and 5s a week, depending of course on the
number of people this was to support.

The granting of relief in this way was widely used. Gwennap, in Cornwall, relieved most of their poor
in this way. The extensive study of the state of the poor across the country published by Sir Frederick
Eden in 1797 reveals that the overseers there allowed 2s 3d a week in 1796.121 At Ashford, in Kent, there
was a definite allowance system, for the parochial report of January 1793 states that ‘the allowance to
out-poor does not exceed 1s a week to a single person, 2s a week to two in the house, and 2s 6d to a
family’.122

Widow Adams’s late husband was not the only one to have received medical care at the cost of the
parish. Local doctors were paid a retainer ‘to attend the poor during their sickness’, such as Mr
Greenwood, Mr Tipple and Mr Bartley, ‘apothecaries at Mitcham’, who were invited by the Vestry on
13 April 1832 ‘to send in tenders of their charges for attending to the invalid poor of the parish for the
year’, Mr Tipple’s tender being accepted on 23 April.123 On 6 May 1829 he had been granted £20 a year
for that purpose, while, as we saw above, Mr Bartley had attended in 1818.124 There are also references
to hospital admissions in both the vestry books and the overseers’ account, as on 16 March 1774 when
Anne Ringstead was taken to St Thomas’s Hospital.125

In some areas of the country, relief took the form of assistance in paying rent, as in the parish of
Blandford, Dorset.126 This practice was also used in Morden, sometimes involving quite large sums.
The rent owed by Thomas Mercer to Mrs Kemp for a cottage was a subject that frequently occupied
the Vestry. On 18 December 1817 Mercer applied to have his rent of £6 6s paid, but on 12 April 1819
a further £7 17s 6d was due to Mrs Kemp for a year and a quarter’s rent to Easter 1818, and on 4
November 1819 the Vestry agreed to pay Mercer’s rent to Christmas which then amounted to £20.127
On 5 April 1821 ‘Mrs Kemp applied for the sum of £5 promised to be paid to her’, for Mercer’s rent
due Christmas last, which was duly paid to her by the overseer.128 On a smaller scale, on 12 April 1819
James Read was granted a £5 advance towards his rent and an additional £1 was given as relief.129

In some cases the rent was paid to avoid having a family in the workhouse. On 19 February 1775 it
was reported that Robert Rouff had been very ill with rheumatism. In consequence he was unable to
work and owed the landlord £4 10s for his rent. The landlord threatened to take the family’s property as
payment. Mr Gasson, the overseer, realised that this would mean placing the family – husband, wife and
five children – in the workhouse, costing the parish one guinea a week. In consequence he decided to
pay half the rent now and half at Easter, as it was not known how much longer Mr Rouff would be ill.130

PROVISION OF FOOD AND CLOTHING

These payments of rent and the granting of allowances were not the only means of relief used in
Morden. The parish also helped the poor by providing food and clothing, especially the latter. Three
ways were used in Morden to provide clothing. In some cases the article of clothing requested was
provided. On 18 November 1819, Winifred Robinson was provided with a pair of shoes for herself and
a pair each for her three children.131 Binfield was requested to make a pair of high shoes for Richard
Avery on 19 January 1818, but when Charles Sparshott’s wife applied on 6 May 1829 for a new boot
for her lame son it was ordered that the old boot be repaired, though her daughter was given a new
pair of shoes.132 However, he was allowed a new boot and 3 shoes on 2 December 1829 and 5s relief on
31 March 1830, presumably a one-off payment.133 Mrs Henry Robinson was supplied with shoes and
trousers for her son James on 19 December 1827, and on 24 April 1829 Samuel Cleverly was supplied
with a pair of stockings and two shirts, another shirt being granted on 31 March 1830.134

Another way was to provide the applicants with material, and leave it to them to make the article. As
we have seen, when Frances Boys applied for shoes for her children, the overseer was ordered on 6
February 1828 ‘to furnish her with leather for making them shoes’, and on the same day John Clark’s
wife was given ‘linen for a gown’ in addition to a bonnet, shoes and stockings for her daughter.135

A third method was to grant a sum of money to buy the article. It seems that this method was often
used when shoes were required or a number of articles of clothing were needed, for example when a
child was going into service. This happened on 24 September 1828 when Mrs Goulter was given £1 to
purchase clothes for her granddaughter, who was going into service.136 On 31 March 1830 she was again
granted £1 to clothe her grandchildren.137

There are a number of occasions when an individual continually received help by being provided
with clothes. Samuel Cleverly seems to have been one of those most helped, especially with shoes. He
seems to be continually asking either for a new pair or for an old pair to be mended, as on 1 March
1827 when he applied for his half-boots to be repaired. 138 We are given no idea as to whether on some
occasions those shoes were for other members of the family, though this seems doubtful as there is
reference to a Sophia Cleverly being granted a pair of shoes on 11 January 1821.139

There were, of course, occasions when an individual was refused an item of clothing requested. In
most cases a reason was given, usually that the person concerned was earning sufficient. Mrs Boys, for
example, was refused a request for clothes for her children on 12 March 1828 as the family income,
which included Mr Boys’s earnings and relief from the parish, amounted to 24s 6d.140 Likewise James
Robinson was refused a pair of shoes for his son on 3 April 1829, as his earnings were 18s a week.141

Household items were sometimes made available in addition to the usual provision of clothing: on 18
December 1817 the overseer was ordered to ‘get back the bed, blankets and sheets lent to Bently’.142

The occasions on which food was granted to an individual were not so numerous. As noted above, the
Boys family had long been allowed seven loaves a week, while Mrs Dearlove and Mrs Gill were each
allowed a loaf in addition to their weekly financial allowance, as recorded on 27 December 1821 and
24 January 1822 respectively.143

These forms of ‘outdoor relief’ used by the parish for outdoor relief were by no means unique, and
the expenses were indeed heavy. The officers of the parish knew the most deserving cases, and also
those who were trying to get all they could from the parish, and it seems that the poor in the parish of
Morden were humanely treated.

Detail from an 1872 tracing of the 1838
tithe map, showing the location of the
former workhouse in Central Road.

CHAPTER 3: THE WORKHOUSE

The socialist economists Sidney and Beatrice Webb described the workhouse or ‘parish poorhouse’ as
‘free lodgings for some of the parish pensioners, as an occasional receptacle for the disabled and sick,
and as a temporary shelter for tramps and for paupers awaiting removal to other parishes’.144 The 1576
Act authorised Justices to build houses of correction, where recalcitrant or careless workers could be
‘straitly kept as well in diet as in work, and also punished from time to time’.145 Later legislation in 1597
and 1623 allowed for the erection of ‘hospitals or abiding and working houses for the poor’.146

It soon became apparent that an institution was required to solve several problems – where some of
the poor of the parish could be employed, those unable to work could be cared for, and where children
could be taken care of. This institution could be placed under a governor or guardian, who would
take care of the poor and enforce discipline. Various experiments were tried in different parts of the
country. Bristol, for example, was allowed to establish a workhouse in 1696.147 As these experiments
were deemed successful, a law was passed in 1723 allowing any parish to maintain a workhouse for the
poor and to compel entry by withholding outdoor relief.148

BUILDING MORDEN’S WORKHOUSE

This then was the legal situation when, on 8 October 1769, the Morden Vestry met to consider the
possibility of building a workhouse.149 They adjourned until the following week, and on 15 October
1769, it was agreed that a workhouse would be erected for the poor.150 The expenses for the building
were not, however, to exceed £200. A committee was then appointed and given ‘power to give direction
to expedite the abovementioned business’. The committee consisted of The Revd Thomas Robson;
Richard Garth (churchwarden); Colonel Taylor; John Arbuthnot; John Warrington; John Ewart;
William and Thomas Sainsbury; Richard Mills; Matthew Hawkins; John Martin (overseer).

At the following Vestry meeting on 26 October the location of the workhouse was decided.151 Mr
Garth, the lord of the manor, had given the parish a piece of waste land on the ‘south side of the road
leading from the Parsonage to the church’, and this was where the house was to be erected. The tithe
map of 1838 shows it to have been on the south side of Central Road, about halfway between the
junction with Green Lane and the junction with modern Farm Road (see extract on facing page). The
size of the house was not to exceed 50 feet by 16 feet including a lean-to annexe, and Mr Ewart was
requested to procure a ground plan and elevation according to these dimensions.

It was also necessary to consider how the sum of £200 needed for the building expenses was to be raised.
It was decided to borrow the sum on an annuity of 40 years. Mr Sainsbury was requested ‘to put a
negotiatory advertisement for that purpose into the papers’. Within a week the Vestry had received three
offers.152 One of these was from a gentlewoman of 60 years, who was willing to sink £100 for an annuity
of £10 per annum. Mr Hawthorne, a ‘taylor’ of Weavers Court, Wardour Street, Soho, was willing to sink
£200 at 8% interest. He was not willing to accept a lower rate of interest, as he had been offered 7½% five
years earlier at Croydon. ‘At the same time the following proposal from Mrs Clara Leheup was delivered
by Mr Garth [her son-in-law]. A friend will lend £200 at 5% interest’. The parish was to give its bond as
authorised by Parliament for repayment of the principal at £4 a year plus interest.

The proposal finally accepted was the one made by Mrs Leheup. However, on 29 June 1771 the Vestry
was informed that Mrs Leheup had declined to advance the sum she had engaged to lend the parish.153
Mr Garth, however, agreed to lend the sum required instead, on the same terms and conditions. This
was then accepted.

The problem of the expenses involved in building the house was still not settled, however. On 22
September 1771 it was resolved that the sum required to build the house, £250, was to be borrowed
by way of annuity not to exceed 8%.154 On 12 October 1771 it was announced that interest on £234
14s 3d was due to Mr Garth.155 A further £25 5s 9d was required for its completion, but Mr Garth
was unwilling to lend this. Mr Gasson, however, was willing to lend the whole £260, including that
advanced by Mr Garth, on the same terms and conditions as Mr Garth at 5% per annum.

An inventory of the household furniture in the workhouse of Morden 25 March 1813. 167

Original spellings have been retained.

Sitting room on the right hand

1 bath stove, fixed

2 cupboards

In the pantry adjoining

1 flower tub

1 beer stand

1 beer stoop

4 shelves

1 dresser

1 swinging shelf

3 baking dishes

1 bowl

Men’s room behind the sitting room

3 bedsteads

4 pairs blankets

3 ruggs

3 bolsters

1 feather bed

2 chaff beds

1 clothes horse

1 old chest

Linen

10 pairs brown sheets last bought

5 pairs of white sheets

5 old sheets

3 roler towels

3 table cloths

3 callico pillow covers

1 ironing blanket

Chamber right hand

1 pair of stairs

3 bedsteads

3 feather beds

3 bolsters

3 pillows

3 ruggs

9 blankets

1 stove as fixed

1 chest of drawers

2 chairs

Chamber left hand

1 linen chest

1 small stove fixed

Garrett on right hand

1 bedstead

1 bolster

1 feather bed

3 blankets

1 rugg

1 old chest

Garrett on left hand

2 bedsteads

1 flock bed

1 bolster

3 blankets

1 rugg

Cupboard under the stairs on ground
floor

1 chain

1 pick axe

Common sitting room

4 chairs

3 forms

2 tables

1 kneading trough

1 dripping pan, fender, shovel,
poker and tongs

6 flat irons and a hanger

12 trenchers

1 pair of bellows

2 pewter dishes

6 pewter plates, 2 iron trivets

2 shelves, 1 gridiron, 1 crane

Washhouse

1 copper and cover

1 iron boiler and cover

3 washing tubbes

2 pails

1 stool old

1 frying pan

1 iron oven door

1 iron scraper, 1 iron fork,

1 rail for oven

2 tea kettles

1 tin cullonder

2 tin saucepans

1 copper boiling pot

1 large tin kettle

1 chopping axe

1 bill

2 shelves

Without doors

1 hog tubb

1 water tubb

Now that the parish had a new agreement, with Mr Gasson, they sought to make everything legal. On
21 December 1771 they asked Mr Garth to secure the land granted for the workhouse to the parish.156
(The overseers’ accounts for 1 May 1781 reveal that the yearly rent was £11 14s 6d.157) It also became
necessary to give security to Mr Gasson and to decide the best method of repayment.158 Mr Provost
was requested therefore to ask counsel’s opinion as to whether a loan should be borrowed at 5% per
annum for 20 years with repayments of at least £5 a year or whether the sum should be raised on
annuity. On 13 May 1772 it was resolved that the necessary sum was to be raised on life annuity.159
On 9 August the same year, Mr Gasson finally advanced the remaining £25 5s 9d to the parish.160
Previously, on 20 April 1772, Mr Garth had been paid interest on the sum of £234 14s.161

Meanwhile, the building of the workhouse was by no means a simple affair. On 26 August 1770 it had
been agreed that the workhouse was to consist of four rooms, two on the ground floor, and two on
the upper floor.162 It was further decided that the house was to be 42 feet long and 16½ feet broad. The
lower storey was to be 8 feet high, and the second storey was to be 7½ feet high. The attic and storage
area was to be 6 feet to the top of the ‘curb’, presumably the ridge.

It was also necessary to obtain the bricks for the building. Mr Garth was asked to enquire into the
possibilities. This he duly did, reporting on 4 November 1769 that the best bricks he had seen belonged
to Mr Wheatley at 20s a thousand.163 He also reported that he expected some from Sir Richard Hotham,
which ‘he supposed will answer the purpose’. The Vestry then ordered him to hire teams to bring the
bricks to the site. The following week Mr Garth reported having got 10,500 bricks from Mr Wheatley
‘and may have more’, Sir Richard Hotham being unable to spare any.164 It was agreed that no more than
60,000 bricks were to be purchased.

On 29 June 1771 the Vestry discussed how the house was to be furnished. It was agreed that the four
rooms were to be made into a kitchen and three bed chambers. The furnishing of these was to be the
responsibility of the overseers, Henry Mitchell and John Martin.165

The vestry minutes give no evidence concerning the number of poor the house could hold, but an
inventory of 5 October 1778 at the beginning of the current overseers’ account book gives some
information concerning how the house was furnished.166 These included 5 chairs, a large table and 2
forms, mentioned at the beginning with 12 pewter plates, 2 dishes and various cooking and brewing
utensils, and then an old chest of drawers, a jointed stool and 2 old chairs, 6 beds and 5 bedsteads, 3
pairs of blankets plus 2 old ones and 3 pairs of sheets, 2 coppers, 2 pails and a washing tub. Many years
later, on 25 March 1813, an inventory was taken of the household furniture in the workhouse (see
transcript on facing page).167 However, this mentions extra rooms to the original plans. We do know
that alterations had been made to the workhouse, because, on 12 August 1805, there was an inspection
of ‘the ground and building of the workhouse respecting the alterations proposed by Mr Acres, who
has a grant of land from the lord of the manor’.168 An inventory of 1815 was entered immediately after
the one of 1813, but is less detailed.

The 1813 inventory gives some idea of the level of comfort offered to the inmates. The sleeping
accommodation, for example, seems quite adequate. The bedsteads had either feather beds, flock beds
or chaff beds. These then had bolsters, pillows, blankets and ‘ruggs’, and there were sheets listed also.
The provision in Morden compared well with other workhouses. Bury in Lancashire, we are told
in 1797, had flock beds and ‘are tolerably well provided with covering’, but no details are given.169
However, in Norfolk, Gressenhall’s house of industry, which served 50 parishes, was well provided. It
had flock beds and each bed had two sheets, two blankets and one coverlet, and the beds were ‘sheeted’
once a month.170 Monmouth, however, only provided coarse sheets, although they were preparing
blankets for the winter.171

Of course, Morden was only one of many parishes to have its own workhouse. Eden, writing in 1797,
shows that it was common practice throughout the country. Epsom, which is very near Morden, had
its own workhouse, which, we are told, had an average of 60 inmates, but ‘it has never exceeded

75, nor been less than 45’.172 The size of the workhouses varied greatly: Portsmouth, in the south of
England, had its own workhouse with 170 inmates, whereas Morden’s workhouse was comparitively
small.173 Workington, in Cumberland, had a ‘large and commodious workhouse, which can take in 150
persons’.174 Tanfield in Durham had only 20 inmates, whereas Bristol had 350 inmates.175 In many cases
the size of the workhouse reflected the size of the area. Tanfield had an estimated population of 2,000
inhabitants, whereas Bristol’s population varied from 88,000 to 100,000 inhabitants.

The conditions of the workhouse also varied greatly, both in their situations and also in the workhouse
itself. Chester’s workhouse, for example, was ‘situated near the river: the lodging rooms and other
apartments are large and well aired’.176 At Bristol we are told that 63 inmates were in the pesthouse
belonging to the workhouse, with the explanation that ‘there are 12 or 15 beds, principally of flocks, in
each apartment: it is probably owing to this circumstance and the number of old and diseased persons,
that the house is infested with vermin, particularly bugs’.177

MANAGING THE WORKHOUSE

The parish of Morden seems to have tried a number of methods for the care of the poor. On 29 June
1771 the Vestry was seeking an individual to ‘intrust with the care of the house and poor’.178 No mention
was made here of payment for the poor being given to the person appointed. In fact, no mention is
made of anyone being appointed.

The next reference to taking care of the poor is from January 1775. It was then announced that the
parish wanted to ‘let to board several poor belonging to the parish of Morden, Surrey. Also a good
parish house to lett’.179 Again no mention is made of the results. Three years later, in May 1777, a Mrs
Beckett, who was mistress of the workhouse, was allowed £7 a year as wages, but she was to ‘find
brushes, brooms, mops etc and candles etc’.180

The parish then decided to contract with an individual at a fixed rate for the maintenance of the poor,
a practice known as ‘farming’, as so many other parishes were doing. The Webbs say that this was
a ‘prevalent method of administration’.181 Eden gives many examples of these houses being farmed
out, the contractor of Wilmslow in Buckinghamshire receiving 3s a week for each of the poor.182 The
payment of a weekly amount for each of the poor was not the only way of paying the contractor. In the
parish of Stanhope, Durham, the contractor received a yearly amount.183 In 1795 he received £495. By
1797 he was not prepared to take less than £700. Although there were only 22 poor in the workhouse,
there were also 100 families receiving weekly out-relief, estimated to cost him £450 a year in 1797.

On 24 September 1778 John Martin, who had been one of Morden’s overseers of the poor, entered into
a contract with the parish. He was to have an annual sum of £200 and the workhouse to live in rent
free. In return he was ‘to provide for all the poor of the parish with good and wholesome meat, drink,
lodging and wearing apparel and all other charges incident to the keeping of the poor for the next three
years’.184

This was evidently a satisfactory arrangement, for we do not hear anything further of the workhouse
until it was necessary to renew Mr Martin’s contract on 2 September 1781.185 This was renewed annually
until, on 1 September 1784, the Vestry decided that a notice was to be published in church on the
following Sunday that ‘any persons wishing to treat with the parish of Morden for the maintenance of
the poor of the said parish for one year from Michaelmas next are desired to give in their proposals’
to the vestry clerk.186

On 13 September 1784 the overseers, John Munk and Edmund Bryon, issued the following resolution:
‘that the person contracted with shall have no more than one bedroom in the poor house for the use
of themselves and their family and on no account whatever to put a bed or beds in any other part of
the poor house except for the use of the poor, and that bills and receipts be produced of all monies
expended for the use of the said poor within one week after payment of every quarterly payment
be made to the person so contracted, with a forfeit of their contract’.187 This resolution may suggest

the cause for Mr Martin’s departure, though he may have wished to leave. At this meeting William
Robinson accepted the responsibility of the poor for £190 a year. He continued his contract until,
on 29 June 1789, he was given notice to quit the workhouse at Michaelmas.188 On 7 September John
Martin offered to take on the post once more.189 On 24 February 1796 he was given an extra £10 for the
quarter ending Lady Day, but on 17 March 1796 Henry Crockford was appointed as ‘overlooker of the
workhouse and the persons in the same’ – perhaps as an inspector rather than workhouse master.190
He was responsible for this to the overseers and churchwardens. On 21 June 1796 Thomas Rollison
was appointed as workhouse master from Midsummer for one year at £200, but on 28 March 1798 the
Vestry decided to change the way they farmed the poor, paying at a certain rate per head per week. The
first rate was 3s and this was to be paid every four weeks, Rollison remaining as master under the new
system, being allowed ‘the profits of the labour of the poor’.191 However, this weekly rate varied through
the years. On 5 December 1799 it was agreed that Rollison be allowed extra whenever the price of flour
was over 45s a sack, being paid ‘the overcharge of the same’.192 On 12 June 1800 Rollison was dismissed,
having ‘forfeited the confidence of the parish in general by a violation of the trust put in him’.193 The
vestry books do not name the master or mistress for the next few years, and the accounts usually just
have the entry ‘Workhouse Bill’ each month, but for a few months these are replaced from August 1802
with ‘Paid Mr [sometimes Mrs] Martin for the Poor’.194 John Martin and his wife were certainly in that
role by 1810, so it seems that they had once again taken on this responsibility.

On 15 November 1804 the weekly rate was 4s, but on 14 October 1808 the rate again had to be raised
by 6d a head until the price of a quartern loaf was under 1s.195

On 16 August 1810 John Martin and his wife were given notice to quit their posts as master and
mistress of the workhouse from Christmas next, and on 25 November Joseph and Ann Pitts were
appointed in their place, receiving 4s 6d a head per week.196 At the same time it was decided to draw
up a set of regulations for the conduct of the poor, and the overseer was to make sure from time to
time that they were obeyed. These regulations were to be fixed up in the Pitts’s sitting room ‘and in the
room where the people who are in their care shall usually sit and eat their victuals’. They were still in
force on 22 February 1821, when reference was made to them against a William Stevenson who was
accused of using very abusive language and being troublesome.197 Morden was not the only parish to
have a set of regulations. The workhouse at Carlisle, Cumberland, had a set which were read to the
poor once a week.198

During the years 1810 to 1821 the weekly rate varied from 3s to 5s, but it was mainly at 5s a week.
On 4 February 1813 the Pitts gave in their notice from Lady Day.199 There were two applicants for the
post, Richard Smith, and James Martin and his wife, each offering ‘to take the care of the poor in the
workhouse at the price of 5s per head per week, clothing for the poor being provided by the parish’,
and on 4 March the Martins were appointed.200 However, on 9 June Mary Ann Martin, declaring
that 5s was insufficient, applied for an increase in the rate. The Vestry duly examined the accounts
of the poor, and decided her application was not founded and instructed her to resign and quit the
workhouse on 1 July.201 It seems that James Martin remained in post until 1815, though there was a
question over his financial dealings in respect of his land tax, as noted in an entry in the vestry minutes
on 23 February 1815, which resulted in a loss by the parish. 202 The same minutes record the decision to
invite applications for the post and, on 6 March 1815, Henry Martin of North Cheam was appointed,
in preference to the other applicant, John Wood, both having offered to accept 5s a head per week.203
The contract was signed on 6 April, but on 4 December Henry Martin gave three months notice that
he would quit his ‘situation’.204

For seven weeks from May to July 1816 the parish experimented with a new method of caring for
the poor. It was suggested that a person might be appointed who would be resident in the house and
receive a salary, but the parish would ‘supply every necessity for the maintenance of such poor as
might be in the workhouse’. This was not a success and the plan was ‘entirely disapproved’, though
Mr Hayward, who had ‘come with a view to undertake the said house and poor’, remained in post

to the end of the current quarter and was paid £10.205 It was agreed that ‘preference be given to a
parishioner offering himself for the management of the poor in the workhouse if his proposals are
as reasonable as those of any other person, and his character be such as to recommend him to the
gentlemen assembled in Vestry’, and on 5 August 1816 the poor were once again farmed for 5s a
week, to William Gilbert.206 On 14 May 1821 the Vestry was reminded that his contract was due for
renewal in three months time, and at the meeting on 17 May 1821 Martha Dearlove was invited to
give the terms on which she would ‘take charge of children from one month old to any age, board
and lodging 3s 6d, if cloathed an addition of 3d per week, if taught to read a further addition of
3d per week’.207 Nothing further is mentioned of this, and on 26 July 1821 William Gilbert offered
to carry on for a year at 4s a head per week.208 He remained in office until his death in 1829, his
widow continuing to manage it until, on 21 April 1829, the Vestry unanimously resolved ‘that in
consideration of the faithful services of Mrs Gilbert during the lifetime of her husband and since
his death in the management of the workhouse of this parish she be allowed to retire from the
workhouse if she is so disposed and that she be allowed at the rate of 4s 6d per week’.209

On 20 May 1829 the Vestry decided to give up using the workhouse and that ‘the poor therein
that cannot be otherwise provided for be sent to the county workhouse at Reigate’. We saw on
page 11 that the parish was struggling to finance its poor relief at this time, in the light of falling
land values, and it seems likely that this led to such a decision. However, those who had long
been dependent on the parish for support were not abandoned. A week later it was agreed ‘that
the following families should be removed to the House formerly used as a workhouse which they
should be allowed to occupy without paying rent as long only as it shall appear to the overseer
for the time being that they are incapable of paying the same: Widow William Gilbert, James
Read, Charles Sparshott. It was also resolved that one room should be occupied rent-free by Ann
Linnett, Widow Caffin, Widow Head, Widow Sexton and that they be allowed weekly the sum of
four shillings each’.210 Local carpenter/builder William Acres was also asked to provide an estimate
of the cost of ‘sundry repairs required to be made’, and it was ‘ordered that a correct inventory be
taken of the furniture in the workhouse’. Widow Gilbert was the former master’s wife, Charles
Sparshott probably the lame boy referred to in the previous chapter, rather than his father, and
James Read the man who had received help with his rent in 1819. They each had their own room,
whereas the other four women were to share a room.

This was not the first time that the county workhouse had been used. On 6 April 1820 the Vestry
ordered that ‘those of our paupers who are now in the county workhouse at Reigate be ordered to
provide for themselves forthwith’.211 As usual, no explanation is given for such a decision.

THE OCCUPANTS OF THE WORKHOUSE

It is not until July 1819 that we are given any idea of the kind of people who were in the Morden
workhouse. In other parishes, details are given concerning the number of poor and their age and
sex. At Chesterfield, Derbyshire, for example, there were 28 inmates – 12 children, 8 men and
8 women.212 In Morden, however, we only gain information about the inmates from the clothes
provided by the parish. On 21 July 1819 we learn that the house was for both men and women, as
6 pairs of men’s stockings and 9 pairs of women’s stockings were in a list of articles to ‘be provided
for the workhouse and for the persons therein’. 213 Other items were: ½ dozen pair of sheets, 66
yards of sheeting, a piece of cloth 56 yards, 4 stuff gowns – for Badams, Nanny Lillard, Tagg and
Mansell, the latter two also receiving a stuff petticoat and a blanket petticoat each – 11 yards of
coarse aproning, 3 yards of towelling, 5 yards for table cloth, 2 yards calico for a night cape, 2
frocks ‘for little Tag the girl’, 4 pinafores and a pair of shoes for little Tag, shoes for Mansell, a stuff
gown for Nash, a handkerchief each for Nash and Tagg, 2 sackings for the beds, and a round frock,
jacket, waistcoat, a pair of breeches and a pair of stockings for White.

This is not the only way of ascertaining who the occupants were. Later references in the vestry
books are to individuals entering the workhouse. As noted above, on 24 March 1827 George and
Henry Treacher were ordered to the workhouse, and we discovered that Henry was then in his
teens.214 We also learn who the occupants were when they quit the workhouse. In May 1821, for
example, William Stevenson and his wife and child left the workhouse. Thus we learn that families
were in the workhouse, including children. References concerning the supplying of clothes also
show this. As we have seen, in July 1819 two frocks were supplied to the little Tagg girl. Also, on 16
May 1822, 6 yards of calico were supplied for the children.215

We can also estimate the number of people in the workhouse from this information. The example
of the supplying of 6 pairs of men’s stockings and 9 pairs of women’s stockings suggests that there
were possibly 15 occupants, as well as the children mentioned. The 1813 inventory of household
furniture only lists 9 bedsteads but the number of occupants could have been considerably higher,
as no mention is made of the number of people in a bed. We know that it was quite usual practice
for more than one person to sleep in a bed. In the poorhouse at New Windsor, Berkshire, two slept
to a bed and at Blandford, Dorset, this must have been the practice too, for there were 36 inmates
and only 22 beds.216 In Ealing, Middlesex, in June 1796, three men slept to a bed, four boys to a bed
and three women to a bed.217 We can be sure that it was not usual for an individual to have a bed
to himself, as we are told on 16 November 1820 that provision had to be made for Thomas Sexton
to sleep alone because he was so infirm.218

The inventory also refers to a ‘men’s room behind the sitting room’ on the ground floor, with three
bedsteads, so it seems likely that the upstairs right-hand chamber was for the women and that the
‘garretts’ were allocated to boys and girls respectively. Thus families would have been split between
rooms by age and gender. This ‘sitting room’ was presumably that reserved for the master and
mistress referred to on 25 December 1810, while the ‘common sitting room’ with its tables, chairs,
forms, trenchers, dishes and plates would have been the room where the inmates ‘usually sit and
eat their victuals’.219

Measures were taken to ensure the cleanliness and health of the occupants of the workhouse. In
October 1819 John Weller was admitted to the workhouse. Orders were given for him to ‘be stript
and washed and if necessary that his hair be cut off’.220 A ‘convicted rogue and vagabond’ of that
name had been removed to Morden from St George’s Hanover Square, Middlesex, on 31 July
1818, his claim to have been born in Morden giving him legal settlement in Morden.221

The parish vestry books also give us some idea of the health of some of the inmates of Morden.
On 21 September 1819 Widow Sexton was paid £1 1s for her attendance on Widow Adams and
on 17 October the question arose as to ‘whether Widow Adams might be safely removed from the
Room where she now dwells to the Workhouse’.222 An entry of 18 November 1819 shows that this
woman was very ill, the overseers making special provision for her by providing the mistress of
the workhouse with an extra 2s a week ‘for procuring nourishing things for the Widow Adams and
towards supplying firing in her chamber’.223 The inventory reveals that there was a fixed stove in
each of the upstairs chambers.

This was presumably the ‘Mrs Badams’ whose insanity was noted in the vestry books. On 20
September 1821 orders were given that two iron bars were to be made for the windows of the room
in which Mrs Badams slept. Mr Tipple (a local doctor) informed the Vestry that she ‘was in a state
of mind that required constant attendance’ and it was ‘ordered in consequence that the overseer
do take measures for having her taken to the Establishment for Insane Persons at Hoxton where
Nichols was placed’, where she could ‘be taken care of if she continued indisposed’.224 We will meet
Henry Nicholles in the next chapter.

Bastardy order against James Lucas, 14 June 1828 – SHC 2065/4/233

EXPENDITURE

The maintenance of such an institution was very costly. The annual payment to the master of the
workhouse was itself expensive. The overseers’ accounts detail what other expenses were involved. Most
of these expenses were for necessities – food, clothing, heating and furniture. There are, for example,
several entries for the provision of blankets and other bedding. On 21 December 1820 £1 7s 6d was spent
on ‘blankets etc.’ for the workhouse, and this is just one such entry.225 Other items related to the provision
of furniture and cleaning materials. The vestry book for 16 November 1820 tells of the provision of an
additional bedstead to enable Thomas Sexton to sleep alone, as noted above.226 On 19 May 1821 brooms
were provided.227

There are numerous examples, both in the vestry books and in the overseers’ accounts, of the provision
of clothing or materials for clothing. Thus we can see that the same kind of relief as far as clothing is
concerned was granted for both indoor and outdoor relief (see page 20). In some cases extra help was
given to the master or mistress of the workhouse for heating. On 19 December 1811 it was decided that
‘two chauldrons of coal at £3 4s a chauldron at Mitcham, the said coals to be fetched from the yard of
Messrs Atkinson and Taylor at Mitcham, by the master of the workhouse at his own cost and charge, be
given as a present to the said master and mistress for the use and benefit of the poor in the workhouse’.228 A
chauldron of coal was a measure of volume of 36 bushels – about 1.3 cubic metres, weighing about 1400kg.

The overseers also provided extra food for a special occasion. Also on 19 December 1811 the overseer was
instructed to ‘supply the workhouse people with a piece of roast beef of about 30 pounds and also 20s for
plum puddings and ale for dinner for the poor in the workhouse on Christmas Day … the said dinner to
be ready at one o’clock precisely and that the minister and church wardens and overseers do attend at the
said workhouse to see that this be complied with’.229 No doubt the precision in timing was more for the
convenience of the visitors than of the residents. There were regular entries in the overseers’ accounts for
bread supplied to the workhouse, as on 23 and 30 June and 7 July 1821 – just one page recording weekly
expenses.230

But there were sources of income to help offset these expenses, in addition to the poor rates. We noted
above that some of the inmates produced an income by their labour. In 1798 the master, Thomas Rollison,
was allowed ‘the profits of the labour of the poor’ in addition to his weekly payments, but on 5 August
1816 it was resolved that ‘each person to be allowed out of their earnings 3d on every shilling as an
encouragement to them for their labour’.231 On 10 November 1821, Longhurst was ordered to pay the
overseer 2s a week ‘towards the support of his wife in the workhouse’, while fathers of illegitimate children
were required to pay towards the support of their children whom they had left in the workhouse – there
are many references in the 1828 vestry minutes to the methods to be used to enforce such payments from
James Stokes of Streatham, who fathered a child on Martha Gilbert, removed to Morden on 17 April 1826,
and from James Lucas, the father of Maria Cleverly’s child, the subject of a bastardy order among the
papers from the parish chest (see image on facing page).232

One can see from these various aspects of the workhouse that as much care was taken of the poor here,
as was taken of the poor outside the workhouse. The overseers were most concerned to assist those
really needing help, and efforts were made to brighten the lives of the poor, for example at Christmas by
providing a Christmas dinner. However, whenever a person was capable of leaving the workhouse they
were allowed or encouraged to leave and given financial support, as happened with the Stevenson family
(see page 29), William Avery and Treacher, as recorded on 31 May 1821 and William Child on 8 October
1828.233 On 17 May 1821 Stevenson had been given 10s and allowed to be absent from the workhouse
for a week ‘in search of a situation’, and on 14 June it was agreed that he and his family would leave on
18 June ‘and never become chargeable to the parish again’.234 However, when Ann Pool applied on 28
November 1827 to leave the workhouse and have an allowance of 4s 6d a week she was ordered to ‘remain
in the workhouse until further and otherwise ordered’.235 A widow, she had been removed from St Olave
Southwark on 7 September 1824, having claimed legal settlement in Lower Morden.236 Clearly, the parish
officers considered each case carefully and made decisions as they saw fit.

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL

By the 18th century the question of settlement and removal had become a very complex matter. A system
had existed ‘from time immemorial’ whereby every person was a member of a local community.237
Each owed obligations to the community and each in return was entitled to a measure of protection
and undefined support. Unknown persons without credentials from their parish were always a source
of grave suspicion. There had been measures from 1381 which dealt with the migration of certain
individuals and groups. Vagrants, for example, had always been seen as a great problem. A number
of vagrancy laws were passed to control them. In 1531 a law was passed by which they were to be
whipped and returned to their place of birth or where they had last dwelt for a period of three years.238

A need arose in the 16th century to ensure that the poor in the parish really belonged to the parish.
This was the result of compulsory relief, the parish having no wish to provide relief to those poor
who did not belong to the parish. The Act of 1572 defines those to whom relief was not due, that is
those persons who could not show they were not beggars.239 The provision which had been granted of
removing those poor who did not belong to the parish was not mentioned in the codifications of the
Poor Law in 1597 and 1601. The next mention of the forcible removal of the poor does not come until
the Act of Settlement and Removal in 1662. Under Cromwell’s rule, however, it had been considered
‘an unjustifiable hardship’ to forcibly remove the poor to their own parish.240

The 1662 Act determined the question of settlement and removal. It was entitled ‘An Act for the Better
Relief of the Poor of this Kingdom’.241 As the Webbs pointed out, during the ensuing years this Act in
fact inflicted ‘much hardship on individuals and, indirectly, also on the whole body of manual-workers
and wage-earners’.242 Under the provision of this Act, the churchwarden or overseer of any parish
could complain to a justice within 40 days of a person coming to settle in a property with a yearly value
of under £10. Two Justices could, by their warrant, remove people liable to become chargeable to the
parish to that where they were last legally settled. This did not happen if they had security to show they
would not become liable to the parish. This security would often be a certificate from their own parish
(see page 39). Anyone threatened with removal could appeal at the next quarter sessions.

Many subsequent adjustments to the Act made it more difficult to obtain a settlement. Some of the
amendments were concerned with when the 40 days would be counted from. In 1691 the 40 days
were to date from the time that notice of removal was published in the parish church.243 It was also
made difficult for some people to obtain certificates. In 1697 soldiers, sailors and workmen in the
King’s service were debarred from gaining settlements, though under an Act of 1784 they could
exercise their trades anywhere without being liable to removal until actually chargeable.244

There were several ways to obtain a settlement. The Webbs list four: illegitimate children obtained one
by birth; legitimate children obtained one if neither parent’s settlement could be ascertained; women
obtained one by marriage to a man whose settlement was ascertained; people who owned freehold
property and lived on it obtained one.245 Tate expands this list from the 1691 Act to include serving a
parish office, paying the parish rate, residing in the parish, being bound apprentice by indenture to a
parishioner, or (if unmarried) serving a year in service in the parish.246 Eden, writing in 1797, says that
‘the greater part of the labouring poor are actually settled’.247

The parish officers faced a complicated legal situation, which would possibly account for the large bills
that were paid when settlement was disputed, for lawyers had to be employed. In Skipton, Yorkshire,
one contested removal in 1794 cost £30 while in the township of Southowram, in the parish of Halifax,
one settlement cost £73 18s 2d for the attorney’s bill alone.248

The officers of the parish of Morden were similarly forced to call upon the assistance of lawyers. On
29 March 1827 they applied to Mr Everett of Epsom for legal advice concerning one Sparshott, while
on 25 July 1827 legal expertise was again required concerning one Gill (see page 45).249 The overseers’
accounts reveal the cost of such legal assistance – on 29 July 1790 a lawyer’s bill for £12 was settled and
in 1826 there was a composite entry of £16 3s for ‘law expenses and stationery’.250

REMOVAL ORDERS

Throughout the period, and especially in the 19th century, Morden was involved with removals. Most
of these seem to have been the direct result of a complaint made by parish officers to the Justices. Only
two of the removal orders are accompanied by separate records of an examination – Thomas Soward,
examined before two Justices on 5 January 1754 and ordered by them on 2 March 1754 to be removed
to Godalming, and Elizabeth Wessen, examined and ordered to be removed to Putney on 14 April
1770.251

Other rulings over complaints, both from Morden and other parishes, only state that the subject of
the complaint had been examined on oath before the Justices, leaving it unclear whether this had
taken place on the day of the ruling or on a previous occasion. However, it seems that a removal
order was only requested from the Justices as a last resort, when all other attempts at persuasion had
failed. Thus, on 20 November 1815 the Vestry ‘agreed that in case of the refusal of Peter Moore and
his family to move from this parish to the parish of Merton on Saturday next the 25th of this month a
warrant will be obtained for his removal to Merton’.252 No such removal order was found among the
papers in the parish chest. On 18 November 1819 John Freeborn was granted 5s by the Morden Vestry
but then was ‘requested to attend the next Vestry that time might be afforded for enquiring if he be a
parishioner of Morden’.253 There are later references to someone with that surname receiving relief in
Morden, including a reference on 11 January 1821 to a petticoat (probably here a man’s short coat)
being provided while in the workhouse, so presumably his settlement was found to be satisfactory.254

On 21 November 1829 the Justices ruled over a complaint by Morden against William Alexander,
his wife and two daughters, stating that they had become chargeable to Morden, but belonged to
Wimbledon.255 The elder girl had no legal settlement of her own. The Justices stated ‘We, the said
Justices, upon due Proof made thereof, as well as upon the Examination of the said William Alexander
upon Oath, as other Circumstances, do adjudge the same to be true, and do also adjudge the Place
of the legal Settlement of the said William Alexander and his said wife and children to be in the said
Parish of Wimbledon in the County of Surrey aforesaid’, and therefore ordered them to be removed
there.

Occasionally the person examined was not the person complained of, as on 4 June 1814, when an
infant girl, Sarah Martin, was removed to Morden from Mitcham on the death of her father, John
Martin.256 The examinant was Ann Langford, whose relationship is not explained. On 4 March 1748
15-year-old Sarah Webb was removed to Lambeth on the oath of her grandmother, on 13 August 1825
Louisa Skeggs, pregnant with an illegitimate child, was removed to Leatherhead on the oath of both
herself and her mother, and Sophia Boys was removed to Lambeth on the oath of her mother on 31
March 1832, following a suspension due to her illness, while on 5 August 1829 Catherine Robinson
was removed to Morden from Leyton, Essex, on the oath of her sister.257

Another case was heard on 7 February 1818, a complaint having been received by the Justices of the
Peace from the churchwardens and overseers of Mitcham concerning ‘Henry Nicholles, who is in a
state of mental derangement, and Henrietta his wife, and their two children, namely Henry aged about
3 years and Henrietta aged about 12 months’.258 They had become chargeable to Mitcham, but were
adjudged to belong to Morden on the examination of his father, James Nicolles, Henry clearly being
unable to take the oath himself. The Justices ordered the family be removed to Morden. According to
Morden’s vestry minutes for 18 November 1819, ‘the sum of four pounds was granted for supplying
Henry Nichols, insane in the house of Thomas Jennings at Bethnal Green, with linen, shoes and
clothing agreeable to the request of the said Thomas Jennings as the rule of his house’.259 However, as
we saw in the previous chapter, on 20 September 1821 Mrs Badams was ordered to be ‘taken to the
Establishment for Insane Persons at Hoxton where Nichols was placed’, but whether he had gone to
Hoxton before or after Bethnal Green is not clear. 260

Among the documents in Morden’s parish chest were 89 removal orders from the period 1740 to
1835, two attached to examinations and two to settlement certificates. Of these, 40 consist of removals
from the parish of Morden elsewhere. Thus there are 9 more removals into the parish of Morden than
out. In most cases the distances involved in these removals are not very great – they are mostly in the
Home Counties (see Appendices II and III).

The overseers’ accounts and vestry minutes for the period indicate that there were more removals
than the extant orders indicate. On 26 June 1820 the accounts record ‘J Brockwell 3s. Passing 10s to
his parish’ – a total cost of 13s.261 There is, however, no mention of his parish, nor are there any other
records relating to his case. Another 10 cases, at least 6 relating to appeals against removal (see below),
can be found in the Quarter Sessions records at Surrey History Centre, one dating as far back as 1708
and another to 1744, while they also have two removal orders from the parish records of Ewell, one
out of Morden, the other into Morden, the latter including an examination.262 No doubt others have
not survived.

Thus it is not possible to assess numbers for each year. Some parishes were able to give averages.
Sheffield, we are told, had 20 removals a year.263 From the evidence from Morden parish chest, the
number of removals each year varied greatly. Removals from Morden are recorded in most
decades from 1740 to the end of our period, but there are no records of removals to Morden
before 1790. The figures are shown in the table below:

It may be significant to note that in 1818 there were 5 removals from Morden and 7 removals to
Morden. Then in 1829 there were 4 removals from Morden and 5 removals to Morden. It would be
interesting to ascertain the reason for the increase at these times. It may be that the removals into
Morden prompted the parish officers to take a closer look at their own affairs.

The people involved in these various removals seem to represent most social groupings. In some cases
an individual is removed, in some a family, while in others it is a husband and wife. On 5 October
1825 a complaint from Mortlake, Surrey, about James Davis and his wife Elizabeth was brought before
the Justices, and after examination of James upon oath, it was adjudged that Morden was their last
legal settlement and they were ordered to be removed there.264 Morden too issued complaints against
husbands and wives. On 23 November 1833 a complaint against John Clements and his wife Sarah,
whose place of legal settlement was adjudged to be Heston, Middlesex, resulted in their removal from
Morden.265

The families who were removed also varied. Sometimes the number of children in the family was
large, other times it was small. On 9 March 1833 a complaint was heard against the Baker family
which included John and Maria and their five children aged between 10 and 2, whose place of legal
settlement was adjudged to be Sutton, Surrey.266 (This was clearly not the John Baker married to Ann
who was examined on 3 November 1777 and who obtained a settlement certificate from Mitcham on
25 April 1778 – see below page 39.)267 William and Charlotte Tagg, who were the cause of a complaint
by Erith, Kent, on 20 December 1816, had only two children, Mary aged 6 and Joseph 3.268 Fourteen
years later, on 23 February 1830, a William and Charlotte Tagg and their 10-year-old daughter Isabella
were ordered to be removed from St Leonard’s Shoreditch, Middlesex, to Morden – the older children
perhaps having moved elsewhere or died.269 In some removals the family unit involved did not include
two parents. A complaint by Morden heard on 7 June 1818 concerned a mother, Dorothy Wrainch,
and her two children being removed to Islington, Middlesex, her husband, William, being in the East
Indies.270 In some cases the family consisted of a father and child, such as that of John Harvey and his
7-year-old son Charles, ordered to be removed to Crayford, Kent, on 11 August 1810.271

Years

1740-

1749

1750-

1759

1760-

1769

1770-
1779

1780-

1789

1790-

1799

1800-

1809

1810-

1819

1820-

1829

1830-

1835

From Morden

To Morden

–

The cases involving the removal of individuals also varied. In some cases it was a man, such as
William Harris who was ordered to be removed to Cheam on 13 December 1817.272 It is possible
that he was the William Harris whose examination took place on 3 October 1796, though he was
married with two young children and claimed to have obtained settlement in Ewell some five years
earlier by virtue of hiring himself to serve a carpenter for a year.273 Or the individual might be a
woman, as on 24 October 1818, when Sarah Paul, a widow, was the cause of complaint by Morden
and was ordered to be removed to neighbouring Cheam, where her late husband, Thomas, had once
rented a house at £10 a year, giving him legal settlement there, according to his examination on 31
October 1796.274 Morden’s records also include cases of removal where the woman concerned was
expecting a child, often an illegitimate child. Such a case is recorded on 16 November 1816 when
‘Elizabeth Poulter singlewoman now pregnant with an illegitimate child’ had become chargeable to
Morden and was adjudged to belong to the parish of Merton.275

It is apparent in all these cases that the cause of the removal is that the persons concerned had
become chargeable to the parish. One can possibly assume that among the inhabitants of the parish
were others who were not legally settled there. It seems that only when they became chargeable to
the parish were they removed. This was, of course, in accord with the Act of 1795.

Morden also obeyed the 1795 Act with regard to sickness. The Act stated that the removal order had
to be suspended if the person involved was unable to travel through sickness or some other infirmity.
In 1809 this was extended to the whole family as a protection. On 24 October 1818 Morden was
granted an order to return the Boxall family – James and Ann and their daughter Caroline – to
Kirdford in Sussex. James Boxall was taken ill and the removal was suspended. However, he died and
on 10 April 1819 Ann and Caroline were ordered to be removed, Kirdford paying £13 for the costs
incurred.276A similar case occurred on 9 May 1829 when neighbouring Merton parish required the
removal of Thomas Becket and his wife and daughter to Morden. The husband was ill and unable
either to attend the sessions or to be removed to Morden for the time being, but was interviewed in
Merton and the removal authorised for when he recovered.277 Another involved John Goulter, his
wife and 4 children, ordered on 27 November 1824 to be removed from Sutton to Morden, once
he had recovered from his present sickness, which was confirmed on 15 January 1825 (see images
overleaf).278 We will see on page 40 that he had died by 22 March 1827, the children being looked
after by their grandparents.279

As noted on page 32, legal assistance was sometimes required concerning removals. Such a
case occurred on 11 September 1832, the only one recorded with detail in Morden. ‘Jane Smith,
singlewoman (pregnant with an illegitimate child or children)’, was stated by Morden to belong to
Wandsworth and was ordered to be returned there. Wandsworth appealed against this action at the
General Quarter Sessions at St Mary Newington, but on 1 January 1833 the appeal was dismissed
and Wandsworth was ordered to pay 40s costs.280

The costs of the removals naturally varied considerably according to the distance and the number of
people involved. Morden’s records are not complete on this matter. References are made at various
points in the overseers’ accounts to journeys and coach and cart hire, though few are specific as to
whom they are for. It is possible, however, to trace some, such as the 7s paid to transfer James Stacy to
Malden on 24 November 1821, the very day the Justices had ordered that he be removed there.281 On
13 August 1825 Louisa Skeggs, ‘now pregnant with an illegitimate child’, was immediately removed
to Leatherhead, Surrey, at the cost of 15s, following an examination on oath of both Louisa and her
mother, Elizabeth Pitt.282

Order to remove John Goulter and family from Sutton to Morden 27 November 1824 – SHC 2065/4/207

Order to remove John Goulter suspended because of sickness 27 November 1824, but renewed 15 January 1825
following his recovery – SHC 2065/4/207v – Copyright Surrey History Centre, reproduced by kind permission

Settlement certificate for William Squier from West Molesey April 1825 – SHC 2065/4/114

SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES

One way of avoiding removal for those who wanted to live in another parish was to ask their own
churchwardens and overseers to grant a certificate acknowledging them to be their ‘inhabitants legally
settled’ in their parish. These were usually addressed to the receiving parish who could then welcome
the newcomers, confident that, should they ever become chargeable to the parish, they had the legal
right to remove them to the parish that had issued the certificate. There were 32 such certificates from
the parish chest granted by other parishes to people resident in Morden, the majority granted by
parishes in Surrey. The earliest three date from 1717, 1726 and 1734, 14 are from the 1750s, 5 from the
1760s, 6 from the 1770s, 3 from the 1780s, and only one after 1787, dated 9 May 1815.

In May 1778 the parish of Mitcham granted such a certificate to the Baker family – John and Ann and
their two children – who had been examined at Morden on 3 November 1777: 283

This Examinant on his Oath saith That Nine Years ago ^
four days after Michmas — he hired himself
— ^ to Nathl. Cooper of the Parish of Mitcham Farmer at the Wages of Eight pounds and ten
Shillings to Serve him from that time to the Michmas following which time he Served his
said Master there And then hired himself to his said Master for a Year at ye. Wages of Ten
pounds and ten Shillings and continued with and Served his said Master there the sd. Year and
received his Wages since which he hath not to his knowledge or belief done any Act whereby
to obtain a Subsequent Settlement And saith that in — March — 1771 he was Married at
Mitcham aforesaid to Ann his Wife by whom he hath two Children namely Ann aged upwards
of five Years and Sarah aged upwards of three Years John Baker

Another certificate was issued by West Molesey in Surrey on 22 April 1825 and confirmed by the
Justices on 27 April for William Squier, his wife Mary and their daughter Elizabeth (see image on
facing page).284

Only three of the certificates from the Morden parish chest were granted by parishes beyond the
county of Surrey. On 4 January 1756 Thomas Bassett, his wife Katherine and their infant son obtained
a certificate from Seal in Kent.285 On 12 January 1765 the parish of Denham, Buckinghamshire,
granted a certificate to Robert and Margaret Monk and their two young sons, who had been examined
at Morden on 29 December 1764.286 The Liberty of Little Amwell, a district of Hertford, granted a
settlement certificate to William and Ann Hudson and their three children aged 11, 2 and 1, on 5
May 1787.287 William had previously been examined in Morden on 28 June 1783 and said that his last
parish of settlement was Stansted near Hertford (Stansted Abbas is about two miles from Hertford),
nine years before, and previous to that at Stevenage for two years, and that he had married Mary at
Christmas last at Lambeth and had as yet no children.288 It is assumed that the child who was 11 years
old in 1787 was not living with William and Ann in June 1783.

In some of the recorded cases, the parish to whom the individual really belongs only acknowledges
the fact by issuing a settlement certificate several months after an examination has taken place. On
29 December 1764 Charles Sybree was examined and said he was a legal inhabitant of Merton and on
5 October 1765 Merton issued a certificate to that effect.289 In other cases, however, the certificate is
issued weeks after a removal order has been issued. John Freeland and his wife were served a removal
order on 7 April 1770 but the certificate was not issued by his parish of Ockham, Surrey, until 4 June
and not signed by the Justices until 16 June.290

On 27 December 1772 the Vestry agreed ‘to command the out parishioners to bring in their
certificates’.291 On 14 February 1773 the following order was made: ‘resolved that the parish officers
do command all the extra people of the parish to get a certificate as indemnification to avoid their
being chargeable to the parish’, using ‘extra’ here in the sense of ‘from outside’ the parish.292 Then, on
28 March 1785 it was ‘resolved that the persons resident in this parish who are not parishioners are to
be sworn to their respective parishes as soon as possible’.293

However, settlement certificates were not restricted to the poorer members of society, though they
were the ones for whom the parish was anxious to avoid responsibility. A certificate was obtained from
neighbouring Merton parish on 15 February 1759 by William Shord and his wife Mary.294 William was
landlord of the Crown inn, on the site of the present Civic Centre, where many of the Vestry meetings
were held over the years, but in November 1781 he took on a 21-year lease of the farm run from the
house later known as Morden House in London Road, and frequently served as an overseer of the poor
or a churchwarden in the 1780s and 1790s.295 At the back of the first volume of overseers’ account is an
entry from February 1759 listing four certificates received: three from Merton for Ralph Stanley, Henry
Davis and William Showard (presumably Shord) and another for William Iles from Cheam.296 The first
three are among the certificates from the church chest, but Iles’s does not appear to be extant.297

There is very little evidence with regard to certificates granted by Morden, as they would have been
retained by the receiving parish, though occasional references are also made with regard to certificates
in the overseers’ accounts under ‘disbursements’. On the page following the list of certificates received,
at the end of the first account book, is a list of those delivered from Morden to other parishes: one to
Hammersmith on 2 June 1758 for Ann Burnell, one to Wandsworth on 27 June 1758 for Henry Webb
and Widow Elsly, another of the same date for Richard Hillier to Merton, one to Stoke ‘Davorn’ [Stoke
D’Abernon] for William Elsor, his wife and family on 30 July 1758, and one to St Mary Lambeth on
31 October 1759 for John Gilbert and Elizabeth his wife.298 The accounts for 14 April 1786 record:
‘Expenses with Ruff’s certificate 8s. Expenses with Wellar’s certificate 5s’.299

A study of settlement examinations in neighbouring Mitcham between 1799 and 1814 reveals seven
cases with settlement certificates from Morden, including Robert Ruff and John Weller, and no doubt
Morden granted certificates for other Morden parishioners residing outside the parish.300 On 18
February 1829 James Tagg asked for support for his wife and children even though the family was living
in Hackney, he being ‘unable and incapable of taking a place at present – expects immediate employ by
Mr Freeman’.301 On 31 March 1827 a Mrs Caffin left the parish but asked if a weekly allowance could be
continued, which was granted, and on 12 September 1827 Frances Robinson, a widow of Garrett Lane
(presumably Wandsworth) was given £1 in relief.302 We discover from the vestry minutes for 22 March
1827 that John Goulter’s orphaned children were cared for by their grandparents in Wallington but, as
we saw on p.21, the grandmother received money from the Morden officers to clothe them, and on 21
April 1828 John Young received 3s a week for the support of his late wife’s 11-year-old daughter living
with her uncle in London and another 3s a week for her son, at home with John.303

The general attitude to certificates in the country as a whole seemed to vary. Eden, in his records
published in 1797, gave details of parishes who granted certificates without scruple.304 Newark in
Nottinghamshire was recorded thus: ‘certificates are allowed here without scruple: about 3 are granted
in a year’.305 Not all parishes were so free with certificates. Eden also recorded parishes who rarely gave
certificates, such as Chesterfield, Derbyshire.306 Some parishes, such as Leeds, were recorded as never
granting certificates.307

SETTLEMENT EXAMINATIONS

Far more records of settlement examinations survive than certificates. Among the records from the
parish chest is a book recording 32 settlement examinations for the period 1765 to 1804 as well as
unbound papers relating to a further 44 for the years 1736 to 1836 and 1 attached to a removal order
from 1826. Only 7 of them were after 1796, 20 occurring in 1796 alone, all dated 31 October. There
may have been more examinations for the parish than were preserved in the parish chest.

The examinations are very similar in form to those recorded by Tate, most of them written onto a
printed form.308 The county is first stated, then the individual’s name. It is recorded that the statement
is made upon oath before two Justices of the Peace. The remainder of the examination then gives
details concerning the life of the individual. Tate points out that these examinations ‘are particularly
interesting since they are virtually autobiographies of persons in a class of which other biographical

record are rarely found’.309 The essence of the biography is the same from person to person. The place
of birth and age is given, details of service and any information with regards to marriage and family.

The examination of William White in January 1765 is an example.310 He said he was:

‘about the age of one and twenty years, born in the parish of Cheam in the said County where
his father was he believes a certificate person. And this examinant saith on his oath that about
five years ago his said father came to reside in the parish of Morden aforesaid by virtue of a
certificate from the parish of Cuddington in the said County, and that since the obtaining the
same his said father hath not as he believes done any act to obtain a subsequent settlement.
And this examinant on his oath saith that since his birth he never rented a tenement or lands
of the yearly value of Ten pounds or served any annual office or paid any parochial taxes
in any parish or place whatsoever or ever been a yearly hired servant. And this examinant
saith that about twelve months ago he was married at Morden aforesaid unto Catherine his
wife by whom he hath issue one child named Nathaniel aged 8 months. And this examinant
saith that at his age of twelve years or thereabout he was, as he is informed, by indentures
under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers of Cuddington … apprenticed
unto Godfrey Springall of Epsom aforesaid, Wine Merchant, and that he continued with his
said master about three months, and then his said master broke and ran away and left this
examinant, ever since which he hath worked at his own hands.’

On 22 February 1770 he and Catherine and their three sons received a certificate from Cuddington,
as did Thomas White and his wife Frances, William witnessing Thomas’s certificate and Thomas
William’s.311

It seems unlikely that this was the same William White who, when examined on 3 November 1777
‘on his Oath saith That — Nine Years ago Michaelmas last he hired Himself for a Year to [blank]
Marsh of Milton Court in the Parish of Dorking in the County of Surrey Farmer at the Wages of Eight
pounds and Continued with and Served his said Master there the said Year, since which he hath not
to his knowledge or belief done any Act whereby to obtain a Subsequent Settlement Save as after
mentioned (that is to say) that for three Years past he hath paid towards the Land Tax of the said Parish
of Moredon, And saith that upwards of three Years ago he was Married at Moredon aforesaid to Ann
his Wife but hath no Issue.’312 (See image overleaf.)

Some of the names already mentioned in this study reappear in these examination records and we are
therefore able to discover a little more about them and their families. Thus Mary Templeman, whose
winter allowances were increased in 1817 and 1822 (see page 19), had been examined three decades
before, on 31 August 1787.313 She was already a widow then with a 6-year-old son called John. She
believed her last legal place of settlement had been in St Mary’s Lambeth, where she had rented a
house at £9 or £10 for 5 months after the death of her husband Henry, and had received 10s relief from
the parish officers there. It is not explained why she had come to live in Morden, where she remained
into old age – she was said to be 63 in 1817.

It is not only those who received relief who appear in these examinations. George Binfield or Bingfield,
the shoemaker from whom the parish ordered a pair of high shoes for William Avery in 1818 (see page
20), had been one of many Morden men examined on 31 October 1796, signing his declaration with a
cross.314 At the age of 14, having neither father nor mother living, he had bound himself by indenture
on 5 July 1774 as apprentice to a Merton cordwainer (shoemaker) for 7 years and duly served his term.
He had married Hannah in Morden 7 years ago, and they had one child Mary aged 5.

Also examined on 31 October 1796 was Richard Williams.315 Born in Enmore, Somerset, where his
father John lived in his own house and was legally settled, he went to work for his brother Thomas,
a cordwainer there, in 1777, staying 8 years. He had married Mary at Spaxton, Somerset, 11 years
before, and they had three children, William (10), James (5) and John (4 months). It is possible that the
Robert Williams of Morden, who in 1831 took as his apprentice his young namesake from St Pancras,
Middlesex, was a member of this family and perhaps another shoemaker (see pages 16-17).

Examination of William White 3 November 1777 – SHC 2065/4/62 (20)

Another examined on that day was Robert Bentley who, when single, had worked as a yearly hired
servant to a William Barton at Ilford, Essex, at £4 a year but was now married to Elizabeth, having no
children.316 Was he the ‘Bently’ who had been lent a bed, blankets and sheets in 1817 (see page 21)?

Soldiers serving in the local militia were a special case that added further complications to the work of
the parish officers. As Tate explains: ‘In every parish men were chosen by lot and compelled to serve
for three years or each to provide £10 for a substitute’, the latter option placing on the parish officers
the additional burden of supporting the families of substitutes from another parish.317

The book of settlement examinations for Morden includes the following two documents from 1776:318

East Brixton and Southwark, in the County of Surrey

At a Meeting of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County of Surrey, acting in and for
this Division, at the SWAN TAVERN, near St. Margaret’s Hill, on Friday the 10th Day of May 1776
personally appeared Thomas Hankins to be examined at the Request of the Officer of the Parish of
Moredon in the said Division, touching the place of his last legal Settlement.

This Examinant upon his Oath, saith, That when a Single Man he was hired by John Goldsmith
in the parish of Cuddington in the County of Surrey Farmer for one Year at the Yearly Wages of
Six Pounds Six Shillings and that he Served his said Master under the same hiring for one whole
Year (Excepting Four Days) and received his full Wages for the same And further Saith that when
his Master paid him his Wages as aforesaid he told him if he continued the said Four Days he
would be Settled in that parish and upon that account Discharged him and hath not gained any
Subsequent Settlement And Saith that he hath a Wife named Jane and One Child by his said Wife
named William aged One Year

The Mark of Thomas Hankins X

Sworn the Day and Year before written before Us, Isc. Stapleton, Richd. Carpenter Smith. Exd.

Surrey to wit

At a petty Sessions this Day held at the SWAN TAVERN in and for the East Half Hundred of
Brixton and Borough of Southwark, in the County of Surrey, by Us whose Names are subscribed,
and other his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County of Surrey acting in and for the said
Division, personally appeared Thomas Hankins to be examined at the Request of the Officers of
the Parish of Moredon touching the place of his legal Settlement.

This Examinant upon his Oath, saith, That he is a Soldier belonging to the Second Regiment
of Foot Guards in his Majesty’s Service and that when a Single Man he lived a Yearly hired
Servant for one whole Year together with Thomas Monk of the parish of Odiham in the County
of Southampton Miller at the Yearly Wages of Five Pounds Ten Shillings and never gained any
Subsequent Settlement and further Saith that he hath a Wife named Jane and two Children by his
said Wife named William aged one year and Sarah aged three months.

The Mark of Thomas Hankins X

Sworn at the Rotation Office in Southwark aforesaid, this 24th Day of September 1776 before Us,
John Levy, Benjn. Thomas.

According to Surrey History Centre’s online catalogue, the Quarter Sessions records for Midsummer
1776 include an order to remove ‘Jane Hankins, wife of Thomas Hankins, now a soldier in his Majesty’s
Service, and child’, from Morden to Cuddington.319

There is no indication that Thomas Hankins had been serving as a substitute but among the loose papers
from the parish chest is an order to the Overseers in Morden from a Surrey Justice of the Peace, dated 14
March 1795, following a complaint made upon oath regarding a substitute (see image overleaf):320

… by Ann, now dwelling in your said Parish. Wife of James Skilton, a Private Militia Man
serving in the Militia of the said County as a Substitute for Samuel Stubings of the Parish of
Windlesham in the said County, which Militia are now embodied and in actual Service. That
the said Ann Skilton is not able to support herself and her one child. I do therefore hereby
require you the said Overseers of the Poor in the Parish of Morden to pay unto the said Ann
Skilton the Sum of Two shillings & six pence Weekly, for the support of her and her said one

Order to support Ann Skilton, wife of militia man James Skelton, 14 March 1795 – SHC 2065/4/229

Child from henceforth until you shall be otherwise ordered to forbear the said Allowance.
Which said Weekly Sum is to be reimbursed to you by the said Overseers of the Poor of the
Parish of Windlesham aforesaid. Who are hereby required to reimburse the same accordingly:
and you the said Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Morden are hereby also required to pay
unto the said Ann Skilton so much money as the said Weekly Sums amount to from the 22 day
of December 1793 to this present Day, which Sum is also to be reimbursed to you by the said
Overseers of the Poor of the said Parish of Windlesham.

The support of substitutes’ families could prove expensive, as revealed on 24 October 1803, when
the Vestry decided to seek legal opinion over a demand ‘from the Treasurer of the County respecting
the support of the family’s [sic] belonging to the Substitutes in the Militia amounting to £97 6s 6d’.321
Perhaps this made the choice of a young, as yet unmarried, man more attractive. On 5 January 1808
a ‘Memorandum’ was entered in the vestry minutes that ‘John Hussey aged 18 years sworn in as a
substitute for Mr Isaacs this day at Croydon’.322

Once again the parish records of Morden show how the officers were concerned with all aspects of
the Poor Law. There can be no doubt that the law with regard to settlement and removal was carefully
observed. People were only removed when they became chargeable. They were then kept if illness
occurred and removed later. Care was also taken to ensure the correct legal habitation. The fact that
there is only one recorded appeal against Morden among the papers from the parish chest might give
the impression that Morden took great care to ensure that everything was correct. However, in 1811/12
the parish of St Giles Camberwell appealed against the removal of Thomas and Elizabeth Hickson and
their 5 children from Morden, and the removal order was quashed by the Justices for ‘defect of form’, so
Morden did not always get things right.323 Sutton also lodged an appeal at Quarter Sessions against the
removal of William Doyley from Morden, in 1821, though the outcome is not known.324

One appeal made by Morden is recorded in the vestry minutes for 23 January 1777 against Wimbledon
parish who had returned John Langshott to Morden.325 It appears that this appeal was unsuccessful as
there are several entries referring to relief paid to him and his wife, as on 6 September 1776, when John
‘Lanchote’ and his wife were allowed 2s 6d a week ‘to prevent their coming into the poor house’, and
on 27 July 1777, when the allowance was increased to 4s 6d a week.326 Two other appeals by Morden,
against Mitcham, were successful, regarding John and Elizabeth Forster and their 8 children in 1810,
and pregnant Sarah Ainge in 1813.327 Two other appeals were lodged by Morden but the outcome of
neither case is known.328

A final example of the thoroughness exercised by Morden’s officers is the case of one Gill, who had
become chargeable to the parish but who claimed legal settlement in Morden because he had once
lived as a yearly servant with Bernard Vansandau, then tenant at Ravensbury Farm/Stelehawes [55].
An enquiry sent to him had resulted in the suggestion that the parish contact his former farm manager,
John Clarance, now living in the Cape of Good Hope. Clarance replied on 16 January 1828 saying that
he had kept a farming diary or ledger which, if it still existed, would show whether Gill’s claim was
true. Mr Vansandau had meanwhile moved to Caen in Normandy and the parish did not know his
address so, on 16 October 1828, they contacted Vansandau’s son, who had an office in Ludgate Hill,
London, and asked if the diary still existed. Andrew Vansandau replied on 27 October that it had
probably been destroyed many years before, but he himself only recalled Gill as a casual worker on
the farm, not a live-in yearly servant.329 Sadly, the outcome of the case is not recorded, but the efforts
expended on it are noteworthy.

CONCLUSION

The Webbs were very scathing in their assessment of the implementation of the Poor Law across the
country, and produced plenty of evidence to reveal its intrinsic weakness. To them it seemed ‘almost
absurd to seek to estimate the degree of success or failure of a nation-wide administration in which
the very elements of efficiency were so completely lacking.’330 Yet this study has shown how the local
gentry and officers of one small parish under the Old Poor Law system attempted to achieve the most
efficient and effective ways they could of dealing with the age-old problem of the poor. They were not
always successful, but the evidence reveals a strong determination to do what they felt was the best for
all members of their community. As in all work connected with human beings, one has to develop the
right attitude. At times it is necessary to be what appears harsh, while at other times one needs to be
sympathetic and gentle. The art is to know what is required for each individual involved.

The officers of the parish of Morden showed great ability. It may be that their understanding was made
easier because the parish was very small with a population of only 600 inhabitants. However, even in
a small community of 200 or 300, such as a school, it is not an easy matter to get to know everyone. It
seems fair to say that the administrators of the poor in Morden achieved a great deal, often in difficult
situations. Much of this work was dependent upon the personalities of the officers of the parish, who
had to deal with the numerous details involved in the Poor Law administration of the late 18th and
early 19th centuries.

London Road, Morden, looking south towards the church at the double bend in the road.

Late 18th-century engraving with aquatint by Francis Jukes of 10 Howland Street, Westminster,
who was at that address for some 20 years until 1808.

Reproduced by kind permission of Merton Library Service

https://photoarchive.merton.gov.uk/collections/buildings/33482-the-village-of-morden-surrey.

The overseers had problems in both the collection of the poor rates and in assessing who really needed
assistance. How did they assess, for example, who was in most need of work? There can be no doubt,
however, that the officers knew what was best and tried to be as humane as possible. They could see
when people were trying to get more than they deserved, and when they were really in need of help.

Care was taken to ensure cleanliness and good health, not only in the workhouse but in the community.
Local doctors were paid to attend the poor during their sickness; women received temporary relief and
payment for care during childbirth; patients were taken to hospital.

The variations in the rate, both in timing and in levels, perhaps indicate the unwillingness of the
officers to burden the parishioners of Morden. Although they were humane and gave some extra
treats, they did not incur unnecessary expense; when they realised that individuals no longer required
weekly allowances, they stopped them. The overseers did not encourage people to enter the workhouse
if they could be assisted more cheaply outside, and they did not encourage individuals to stay in the
workhouse when it was unnecessary.

The parish kept within the bounds of the law in the collection of the rates, when an order would be
obtained from the magistrates for the collection of longstanding arrears, and in matters of settlement
and removal. The officers were thorough and maintained information regarding settlement certificates
and examinations, as well as the details of the cost of journeys and of legal advice.

The system examined in this study did not last, and in 1834 the Poor Law was completely reorganised,
with greater power given to central authority. Poor Law Commissioners were appointed, with wide
powers of regulating all matters relating to poor relief. Parishes were united into districts or Poor Law
Unions, with a Board of Guardians to administer poor relief in the district. After 1834 Morden became
part of the Croydon Union.

The parish chest in St Lawrence church, in which the documents cited in this study were stored

until removal to Surrey History Centre in 1976

[59]

[52]
[53]

CARSHALTON

MITCHAM

[49]

[55]

[54]

[46]

[55]

[1]

[45]

[4]

[2]

[1]

[61]

[9]

[64]

[57]

[47]

[78-81]

[39]

[41-44]

[82-84]

[48]

[8]

[G]

[13]

[70]

[37-38]

[60]

[69]

[25-36]

[66]

[57]

SUTTON

[11]

[16]

MERTON

[18]

[16]

[12]

[16]

[18]

[22]

[85]

[93-94]

[18]

Roads

[14]

[21]

Rivers

[14]

[16]

[87-89]

[90-92]

[14]

CHEAM

MALDEN

Sketch map based on the 1838 tithe map, identifying location of properties mentioned in this study

APPENDIX I

Assessment made 1 February 1816 @ 15d in the pound 331

Rents £ s d [ID] later name

[£]

135 Lancelot Chambers Esq Farm 8 8 9 [13] Hill House

53 Edward Martin Inn 3 6 3 [66] George Inn

40 William Lambert House } 3 5 0 [69] ‘Manor House’

12 ” Glebe Land } [G] glebe land

4 William Sawyer Cottage 5 0 [?]

4 Samuel Carpenter Cottage 5 0 [?]

20 Philip Puttock Shop 1 5 0 [70] Wheelwright

10 Thomas Marchant Shop 12 6 [?]

405 George Ridge Esq House & Farm 25 6 3 [11] Morden Park

120 Edwd. Polhill Esq. Mill 7 10 0 [2] Morden Hall Mills

90 Wm. Bloxam House & Land 5 12 6 [45] Small Profits

15 Wm. Marchant Shop 18 9 [31] Smithy

110 Sir Robt. Burnett House & Land 6 17 6 [1] Morden Hall

94 Jno. Hammond Farm 5 17 6 [8] Morden House

56 Henry Gell Inn 3 10 0 [39] Crown Inn

180 James Atkinson Farm 11 5 0 [16] Peacock Farm

95 Aaron Goldsmid Esq. Land & Houses 5 18 9 [46] Morden Lodge +
[9] Duckets Farm

126 Thos. Clifton Garden &c 7 17 6 [4] Market garden

20 Ness Cottage 1 5 0 [?]

125 Frances Barnard Farm 7 16 3 [49] Ravensbury Manor

215 B Vansandau Esq. Farm 13 8 9 [55] Ravensbury Farm

72 Jno. Rutter Mill 4 10 0 [54] Ravensbury Mills

13 Edwd. White Land } 16 3 [?]

60 ” House } 3 15 0 [?61] Hazelwood?

75 Jno. Dixon House & Land 4 13 9 [64] The Laurels

30 Dr Peers House & Land 1 17 6 [47] Rectory

20 Jno. Cumberpatch Cottage 1 5 0 [78] Central Road

12 Francis Howard Shop 15 0 [71] Plough + shop

12 Jno. Atwood Cottage 15 0 [?]

15 Mrs Durrall Cottage 18 9 [?]

20 Jonn. Acres Junr. Shop & Cottage 1 5 0 [93-94] Sheepshearers

8 Jno. Boys Cottage 10 0 [83] Central Road

14 Avery & Boys Cottage 17 6 [?]

8 James Martin Cottage 10 0 [84] Central Road

8 James Batter Cottage 10 0 [82] Central Road

4 William Smith Cottage 5 0 [?]

4 Jonathan Pitt Cottage 5 0 [?]

7 William Gilbert House & Orchard 8 9 [85] By Bow Lane

6 Jonathan Acres Senr. Cottage 7 6 [21] The Kennels

137 Thomas Sherwood Esq. Farm 8 11 3 [18] Lower Morden Fm

6 Ann Baker Cottage 7 6 [22] Lower Morden

4 Edwd. Westwood Cottage 5 0 [88] Morden Common

180 Jno. Gurney Farm 11 5 0 [14] Hobalds Farm

4 Wm. Dearlove Cottage 5 0 [89] Morden Common

6 Thos. Clarke Cottage 7 6 [90] Morden Common

21 Richd. Whiffin Land 1 6 3 [48] Buckles Meadow

3 Richd. Dallett Land 3 9 [60] Nomansland

55 Richd. Glover Land 3 8 9 [59] Paper Mill

29 Esq. Hoare Ladysfield } 3 7 6 [52] pt Mitcham Grove

25 ” Coopers } Land [53] pt Mitcham Grove

243 Geo. M. Hoare Esq. Farm 15 3 9 [57] Spital/The Lodge

3030 TOTAL £189 7 6

APPENDIX II

Recorded removals to Morden from counties and from Surrey parishes (at foot of page)

Lond &

Wikimedia Commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:English_counties_1851_with_ridings.svg, accessed 2.5.2020

•

SURREY

The arrows indicate outlying areas of a parish

APPENDIX III

Recorded removals from Morden to counties and to Surrey parishes (at foot of page)

Lond &

Wikimedia Commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:English_counties_1851_with_ridings.svg, accessed 2.5.2020

•

SURREY

The arrows indicate outlying areas of a parish

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts

Vestry Minutes 1768-1783 SHC 2065/3/1

1783-1817 SHC 2065/3/2

1817-1825 SHC 2065/3/3

1819-1832 SHC 2065/3/4

Rate Books 1755-1770 SHC 2065/4/1

1770-1779 SHC 2065/4/2

[1778] 1780-1793 SHC 2065/4/3

1793-1810 SHC 2065/4/4

1801-1811 SHC 2065/4/5

1812-1817 SHC 2065/4/6

1817-1824 SHC 2065/4/13

1826 SHC 2065/4/14

1828 SHC 2065/4/15-17

1829 SHC 2065/4/18-21

1830 SHC 2065/4/22-24

1831 SHC 2065/4/25-28

1832 SHC 2065/4/29-33

1833 SHC 2065/4/34-36

1834 SHC 2065/4/37-40

Morden Parish Ledger [Overseers’ Accounts] 1820-1833 SHC 2065/4/7

Morden Settlement Examinations Book 1765-1804 SHC 2065/4/62

Papers 1736-1836 SHC 2065/4/63-107

Settlement certificates 1717-1815 SHC 2065/4/108-139

Removal orders 1740-1835 SHC 2065/4/140-228

Miscellaneous papers 1770-1833 SHC 2065/4/229-241

Printed Sources

Eden, Sir F M The State of the Poor I-III (1797), condensed volume ed. A G L Roper (1928)

Secondary sources

Ashton, T S An Economic History of England: The 18th Century (1955, 1959, 1969)

Briggs, Asa The Age of Improvement (1959, 1978)

Jowett, E M A History of Merton and Morden (1951)

Tate, W E The Parish Chest (1946, 1951, 1969, 1985)

Webb, Sidney & Beatrice English Local Government VII: English Poor Law History I: The Old Poor Law (1922, 1963)

Malden, H E (Ed) The Victoria County History: Surrey IV (1912)

NOTES & REFERENCES

1. MHS Bulletins 37 (Apr
1974) p.3, 45 (Jun 1976)
p.4, 46 (Oct 1976) pp.2-3;
Surrey Archaeological Society
Bulletins 111 (Oct/Nov
1974), 124 (Feb 1976), 130
(Sep 1976)

2. Westminster Abbey
Muniment Book 11 36v-38v

3. John Morris Domesday Book:
Surrey (1975) p.6

4. For a more recent summary
of Morden’s history see Peter
Hopkins Discovering the
Past 1: Lower Morden and
Morden Park (1999, 2000)
pp.1-5

5. Victoria County History,
Surrey IV (1912) p.451

6. Morden in 1838: The Tithe
Apportionment Map (MHS
Local History Notes 13,
1998)

7. Ashton p.31

8. P J Hopkins Medieval
Morden: The Manorial
Economy (2020) pp.33-45

9. Tate p.190

10. 27 Hen. VIII c.25

11. 5 Eliz. c.3

12. 14 Eliz. c.5

13. Webb & Webb p.52

14. 43 Eliz. c.2

15. 39 Eliz.

16. Tate p.13

17. SHC 2065/3/2 (24)

18. SHC 2065/3/2 (61)

19. SHC 2065/3/2 (94, 124)

20. SHC 2065/3/2 (174)

21. SHC 2065/3/4 (98, 111)

22. Tate p.220 and n.31

23. SHC 2065/3/3 (21);

59 Geo III c.12

24. SHC 2065/3/4 (73-80)

25. SHC 2065/4/1 (6)

26. SHC 2065/4/3 (3-5),
2065/4/13 (115-117)

27. SHC 2065/4/3 (3-5)

28. The name Ravensbury Farm
was attached to different
holdings over the 19th
century, when Stelehawes
ceased to be a working
farm – See E N Montague
Mitcham Histories 10:
Ravensbury (2008) pp.49-60

29. SHC 2065/4/3 (92-95)

30. SHC 2065/3/2 (129-130)

31. SHC 2065/3/2 (131)

32. SHC 2065/4/6 (4-8)

33. SHC 2065/3/2 (151)

34. SHC 2065/3/3 (22)

35. SHC 2065/3/3 (23),
2065/4/13 (48-50, 65-68)

36. SHC 2065/3/4 (19)

37. SHC 2065/4/13 (113-115)

38. E N Montague Mitcham
Histories 8: Phipps Bridge
(2006) pp.42-49

39. SHC 2065/4/16, 2065/4/35

40. SHC 2065/3/4 (102-104)

41. SHC 2065/4/6 (90-93)

42. SHC 2065/3/2 (172)

43. SHC 2065/3/3 (10)

44. SHC 2065/4/3 (73)

45. SHC 2065/4/3 (90-91)

46. SHC 2065/3/2 (172)

47. SHC 2065/3/3 (12)

48. SHC 2065/3/2 (150)

49. SHC 2065/3/4 (102)

50. SHC 2065/3/4 (102)

51. SHC 2065/3/4 (98)

52. SHC 2065/4/3 (131-134)

53. SHC 2065/4/6 (87)

54. SHC 2065/3/2 (35)

55. SHC 2065/3/2 (133)

56. SHC 2065/4/5 (171, 175)

57. SHC 2065/3/3; 2065/3/4 (22)

58. SHC 2065/3/4 (134)

59. 11 Geo 4. and 1 Will 4. c. 64

60. 18 Eliz c.3; Eden I p.128

61. 43 Eliz c.2

62. 3 Chas I

63. SHC K85/1/1 m.2

64. SHC 2065/3/2 (128)

65. SHC 2065/3/3 (84)

66. SHC 2065/3/4 (84)

67. SHC 2065/3/4 (49)

68. SHC 2065/3/4 (62)

69. SHC 2065/3/4 (89)

70. SHC 2065/3/4 (90)

71. SHC 2065/3/4 (108)

72. SHC 2065/4/7 (147b)

73. SHC 2065/4/7 (107b-120b)

74. SHC 2065/3/4 (107)

75. SHC 2065/4/7

76. SHC 2065/4/7 (128b, 129b)

77. SHC 2065/3/4 (85)

78. SHC 2065/3/4 (73)

79. SHC 2065/4/7

80. SHC 2065/3/4 (113)

81. SHC 2065/3/4 (122)

82. SHC 2065/4/7 (277);
2065/3/4 (96)

83. SHC 2065/3/4 (112, 125)

84. SHC 2065/3/4 (109)

85. SHC 2065/3/4 (87)

86. SHC 2065/3/4 (107)

87. SHC 2065/4/185

88. SHC 2065/3/4 (101)

89. SHC 2065/3/3 (4)

90. Tate p.233; Joy Bristow The
Local Historian’s Glossary
of Words and Terms (1990,
2005) p.156

91. SHC 2065/3/4 (8)

92. SHC 2065/3/1 (36)

93. SHC 2065/3/1 (36, 38)

94. SHC 2065/3/3 (8)

95. SHC 2065/3/4 (96)

96. The Health and Morals of
Apprentices 42 Geo III c.46

97. Tate pp.221-226

98. SHC 2065/3/1 (60-61)
(memo written at end of
vestry book)

99. SHC 2065/3/4 (29, 30, 35, 36,
37)

100. SHC 2065/3/4 (50)

101. SHC 2065/4/236

102. SHC 2065/4/2 (12-16)

103. SHC 2065/4/7

104. SHC 2065/3/4 (33)

105. SHC 2065/3/4 (48)

106. SHC 2065/3/3 (15, 7)

107. SHC 2065/3/4 (52-53)

108. SHC 2065/3/4 (45);

2065/3/3 (8)

109. SHC 2065/3/4 (61)

110. SHC 2065/3/3 (16)

111. SHC 2065/3/3 (16),

2065/3/4 (92, 95)

112. SHC 2065/3/4 (20)

113. SHC 2065/3/4 (121)

114. SHC 2065/3/3 (14, 15)

115. SHC 2065/3/4 (22)

116. SHC 2065/3/4 (9)

117. SHC 2065/3/4 (120)

118. SHC 2065/3/3 (8, 9)

119. SHC 2065/3/4 (38)

120. SHC 2065/3/1 (39)

121. Eden II p.44

122. Eden II p.279

123. SHC 2065/3/4 (132, 133)

124. SHC 2065/3/4/113;

2065/3/3 (14, 15)

125. SHC 2065/3/3 (29),

126. Eden II p.148

127. SHC 2065/3/3 (7, 15, 26)

128. SHC 2065/3/4 (30)

129. SHC 2065/3/3 (16)

130. SHC 2065/3/1 (33a)

131. SHC 2065/3/4 (8)

132. SHC 2065/3/3 (8),

2065/3/4 (112)

133. SHC 2065/3/4 (118, 120)

134. SHC 2065/3/4 (97, 112, 120)

135. SHC 2065/3/4 (96)

136. SHC 2065/3/4 (106)

137. SHC 2065/3/4 (120)

138. SHC 2065/3/4 (86)

139. SHC 2065/3/4 (26)

140. SHC 2065/3/4 (98)

141. SHC 2065/3/4 (109)

142. SHC 2065/3/3 (7)

143. SHC 2065/3/4 (85, 47, 49)

144. Webb & Webb, p.212

145. 18 Eliz c.3;

Webb & Webb, p.53

146. 39 Eliz c.5 and 21 Jas I c.1

147. 7 & 8 Wm III c.32

148. 9 Geo I c.7

149. SHC 2065/3/1 (4)

150. SHC 2065/3/1 (5-7)

151. SHC 2065/3/1 (8)

152. SHC 2065/3/1 (9-10)

153. SHC 2065/3/1 (14)

154. SHC 2065/3/1 (14-15)

155. SHC 2065/3/1 (15)

156. SHC 2065/3/1 (16)

157. SHC 2065/4/3 (10)

158. SHC 2065/3/1 (16)

159. SHC 2065/3/1 (21)

160. SHC 2065/3/1 (22)

161. SHC 2065/3/1 (18)

162. SHC 2065/3/1 (13)

163. SHC 2065/3/1 (11)

164. SHC 2065/3/1 (11)

165. SHC 2065/3/1 (14)

166. SHC 2065/4/3 (3)

167. SHC 2065/3/3 (78-81)

168. SHC 2065/3/2 (103)

169. Eden II p.297

170. Eden II pp.453, 460, 463

171. Eden II p.448

172. Eden III p.697

173. Eden II p.227

174. Eden II p.101

175. Eden II pp.176,184

176. Eden II p.35

177. Eden II pp.184-5

178. SHC 2065/3/1 (15)

179. SHC 2065/3/1 (33)

180. SHC 2065/3/1 (42)

181. Webb and Webb p.277

182. Eden II p.30

183. Eden II pp.168-9

184. SHC 2065/3/1 (45)

185. SHC 2065/3/1 (51)

186. SHC 2065/3/2 (8)

187. SHC 2065/3/2 (9-10)

188. SHC 2065/3/2 (29)

189. SHC 2065/3/2 (30)

190. SHC 2065/3/2 (65)

191. SHC 2065/3/2 (66, 72)

192. SHC 2065/3/2 (79)

193. SHC 2065/3/2 (81)

194. SHC 2065/4/5 (39)

195. SHC 2065/3/2 (96, 119)

196. SHC 2065/3/2 (132, 135)

197. SHC 2065/3/4 (27)

198. Eden II pp.53-5

199. SHC 2065/3/2 (143)

200. SHC 2065/3/2 (144)

201. SHC 2065/3/2 (146)

202. SHC 2065/3/2 (156)

203. SHC 2065/3/2 (157)

204. SHC 2065/3/2 (159)

205. SHC 2065/3/2 (167)

206. SHC 2065/3/2 (169)

207. SHC 2065/3/4 (33-35)

208. SHC 2065/3/4 (40)

209. SHC 2065/3/4 (111)

210. SHC 2065/3/4 (113)

211. SHC 2065/3/4 (14)

212. Eden II p.109

213. SHC 2065/3/3 (19-20)

214. SHC 2065/3/4 (87, 107)

215. SHC 2065/3/4 (65)

216. Eden II pp.23, 146-7

217. Eden II p.422

218. SHC 2065/3/4 (23)

219. SHC 2065/3/2 (135)

220. SHC 2065/3/4 (6)

221. SHC 2065/4/202

222. SHC 2065/3/3 (24);

2065/3/4 (6)

223. SHC 2065/3/4 (7)

224. SHC 2065/3/4 (43), /3/3 (53);
Hoxton House, Hoxton,
‘was established as a private
asylum in 1695. It was
owned by the Miles family,
and expanded rapidly into
the surrounding streets …
Over 500 pauper lunatics
resided in closed wards,
and it remained the Naval
Lunatic Asylum until 1818.
The asylum closed in 1911;
and the only remains are
by Hackney Community
College, where a part of the
house was incorporated
into the school that replaced
it in 1921.’ – https://
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hoxton, accessed 14.4.2020

225. SHC 2065/4/7 (31)

226. SHC 2065/3/4 (23)

227. SHC 2065/4/7 (55)

228. SHC 2065/3/2 (140)

229. SHC 2065/3/2 (140-141)

230. SHC 2065/4/7 (32b)

231. SHC 2065/3/2 (72, 169)

232. SHC 2065/3/4 (99),
2065/4/211-212, 2065/4/233

233. SHC 2065/4/3 (36, 106)

234. SHC 2065/3/4 (35, 38)

235. SHC 2065/3/4 (95)

236. SHC 2065/4/206

237. Webb & Webb p.315

238. 22 Hen VIII c.12

239. 14 Eliz c.5

240. Webb & Webb p.320

241. 13 & 14 Chas II c.12

242. Webb & Webb p.315

243. 3 Wm & Mary c.11

244. 8 & 9 Wm III c.30,

24 Geo III c.6

245. Webb & Webb p.329 note

246. Tate p.192

247. Eden I p.880

248. Eden III pp.878, 880

249. SHC 2065/3/4 (87, 91)

250. SHC 2065/4/3 (143);
2065/4/7 (215=109a)

251. SHC 2065/4/64 & 65;
2065/4/73&74

252. SHC 2065/3/2 (163)

253. SHC 2065/3/4 (8)

254. SHC 2065/3/4 (26)

255. SHC 2065/4/167

256. SHC 2065/4/186

257. SHC 2065/4/143;
2065/4/163; 2065/4/171;
2065/4/220

258. SHC 2065/4/197

259. SHC 2065/3/4 (7)

260. SHC 2065/3/4 (43)

261. SHC 2065/4/7 (8b)

262. SHC QS2/6/1708/Mid/53,
SHC QS2/6/1708/EA/9,
SHC QS2/6/1744/Mid &
Mic/75, SHC QS2/6/1765/
Eas/5, SHC QS2/6/1754/
Mic/10; SHC 3831/3/74,
3831/3/95-95

263. Eden III p.874

264. SHC 2065/4/210

265. SHC 2065/4/176

266. SHC 2065/4/174

267. SHC 2065/4/62/18,
2065/4/135

268. SHC 2065/4/191

269. SHC 2065/4/223

270. SHC 2065/4/155

271. SHC 2065/4/148

272. SHC 2065/4/194

273. SHC 2065/4/95

274. SHC 2065/4/145; 2065/4/96

275. SHC 2065/4/150

276. SHC 2065/4/159

277. SHC 2065/4/219

278. SHC 2065/4/207

279. SHC 2065/3/4 (106, 120)

280. SHC 2065/4/172, 2065/4/235

281. SHC 2065/4/7 (37b);
2065/4/161

282. SHC 2065/4/7 (99b);
2065/4/163

283. SHC 2065/4/62/18;
2065/4/135

284. SHC 2065/4/114

285. SHC 2065/4/119

286. SHC 2065/4/126; 2065/4/71

287. SHC 2065/4/137

288. SHC 2065/4/62/29

289. SHC 2065/4/ (70);

2065/4 (127)

290. SHC 2065/4/132 & 133

291. SHC 2065/3/1 (24)

292. SHC 2065/3/1 (25)

293. SHC 2065/3/2 (14)

294. SHC 2065/4/124

295. SHC K85/2/60

296. SHC 2065/4/1 (89)

297. SHC 2065/4/120, 122, 124

298. SHC 2065/4/1 (90)

299. SHC 2065/4/3 (71)

300. Blanche Berryman Mitcham
Settlement Examinations
1784-1814 (Surrey Record
Society XXVII 1973) I: 34,
69, 75 (+ III:185), 156,

II: 94, 108, III: 10

301. SHC 2065/3/4 (109)

302. SHC 2065/3/4 (87, 92)

303. SHC 2065/3/4 (86, 106, 120;
100)

304. Eden II pp.572, 405

305. Eden II p.572

306. Eden II p.114

307. Eden III p.859

308. Tate pp.203-5

309. Tate p.202

310. SHC 2065/4/72

311. SHC 2065/4/131 & 130

312. SHC 2065/4/62 (20)

313. SHC 2065/4/79

314. SHC 2065/4/98b

315. SHC 2065/4/102b

316. SHC 2065/4/99b

317. Tate pp.180-181

318. SHC 2065/4/62 (14 & 15)

319. SHC QS2/6/1776/
Mid/8: https://www.
exploringsurreyspast.org.
uk/collections/getrecord/
SHCOL_QS_16_248_8,
accessed 22.4.2020

320. SHC 2065/4/229

321. SHC 2065/3/2 (93)

322. SHC 2065/3/2 (113)

323. SHC QS2/6/1812/EA/24

324. SHC QS2/6/1821/EA/17a-b

325. SHC 2065/3/1 (27)

326. SHC 2065/3/1 (38, 41)

327. SHC QS2/6/1811/EP/12;
QS2/6/1813/EP/3

328. SHC QS2/6/1754/Mic/16 &
21; QS2/6/1809/EPI/27

329. SHC 2065/4/237 & 238

330. Webb & Webb p.427

331. SHC 2065/4/6 (90-92)

MERTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY – 2022

ISBN 978 1 903899 82 3

Further information on Merton Historical Society can be obtained from the Society’s website

at www.mertonhistoricalsociety.org.uk

or from

Merton Library & Heritage Service, Merton Civic Centre,

London Road, Morden, Surrey SM4 5DX

This entry was posted in Publications, Publications, Studies in Merton History and tagged in 18-century Morden, 19-century Morden, hotoffthepress, morden, parish records.

« Bulletin 224

Bulletin 223 »

ISBN: 978-1-903899-82-3 Stapled booklet: 56 A4 pages 22 images of original documents and contemporary views, plus maps and tables Published by Merton Historical Society (2022) Price: £3.75 Members: £3.

How to Order

Show details

MHS publications can be ordered by email or by post

We prefer payment by bank transfer in sterling. Email your order and delivery address to publications@mertonhistoricalsociety.org.uk and request our bank details.

Or send a sterling cheque payable to Merton Historical Society to
The Publications Secretary
57 Templecombe Way,
Morden, Surrey
SM4 4JF, England

Click here if you can't make sterling payments

Download an Order Form

SPECIAL OFFER

We are currently running a ‘Three for the Price of Two’ offer on any titles in Eric Montague’s Mitcham Histories series. Three books for £11.90 (£9.60 to members) plus £3.50 postage.

Hot off the press

- The Physic Gardens of Mitcham
- Memories of the New Merton Board Mills 1964-1976

Many of our Local History Notes are now freely downloadable!