| Description: |
| Folios 254-255. Letter from Edward Gulson, [Assistant Poor Law Commissioner] to George Nicholls [Poor Law Commissioner]. He has written his views about the relief given in Basford on the blank page of the letter. He thinks the Commissioners now have to enforce their rules or allow them to break down. He believes the relief being offered in Basford Poor Law Union is against the rules, and thinks the Basford Guardians, urged on by certain Magistrates, 'want all the discretion and authority - and this I look upon as a mere attempt to gain it'. Gulson cites four cases. First, Henry Sully age 54, framework knitter, out of employ, his wife age 54, a seamer, his son age 15, framework knitter, daughter age 13, daughter age 12, daughter age 11, son age 8, son age 5. Gulson says this man and his family in good times could earn large wages in good times, but as soon as he is thrown out of work he expects the parish to maintain him instead of making provision for himself. His relief is against the rule; no work has been exacted, and this is just the old system. Secondly, William Radford age 40, cotton spinner, his wife age 38, near confinement, daughter age 12, son age 8, son age 10, daughter age 6, daughter age 4, daughter age 1½. They have received 56lbs bread for each of two weeks. This man belongs to Papplewick in Basford Poor Law Union, but lives in Mansfield 'away from home', 'consequently under Rules first issued to every Union (to say nothing of more stringent Rules) - this relief is contrary to 'Order' - If the man and his family were in such destitute circumstances as to require relief positively - it would be the duty of the Mansfield Parish to relieve him as casual poor and remove him home if necessary - when he should go to the workhouse'. Gulson stresses the irregularity and that no test has been applied. He adds that Mr Nixon resides in the parish to which this man belongs. Thirdly, Charles Walker age 27, framework knitter, his wife age 32, daughter age 2, infant age 1. This man belongs to Basford and again resides in Mansfield. Again, his relief is against the rules, no test has been applied, and Gulson stresses his age and the fact that he should have made provision when work was plentiful. 'Relieved with 32lbs of bread - no work exacted'. Fourthly, William Hind age 49, a widower, 'earns 5s he says'. He has a son age 15, daughter age 11 who earns 2s 6d, daughter age 8, son age 6, daughter age 3, infant age 1. 'This man does not reside in the Parish to which he belongs - He is relieved with 28lbs bread weekly - value 4s 2d - This is relief in aid of Wages - and is contrary to all Rule'. Again Gulson stresses that the rules must be enforced or become useless. He sees the situation in Basford Poor Law Union as a challenge to the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners by the Basford Guardians. He believes the rules can be enforced in Basford 'the Workhouse containing as it does by this days return only 5 ablebodied men - and 175 in the whole'. He says a letter muse b sent immediately to the clerk to the Basford Poor Law Union, and requests a copy of any letter sent. In a postscript Gulson says he was not at Horncastle [Lincolnshire] when he was wanted, and 'a violent opposition was raised by a party with two Magistrates at their head'. The Chairman is absent for some time. Gulson was there last Tuesday 'and carried the point by a great majority'. He requests that all letters from that Union are sent for his inspection before being replied to. He fears 'these men' will 'stop the Workhouse erection if they can in any way'. Paper Number: 3577/C/1837. See also Paper Number: 3424/C/1837. Poor Law Union Number 334. Counties: Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. |
|
No items