Page 28.
OVERSEERS OF THE POOR
SKELTON RATEPAYERS 1823.
|
|
Each Easter the Overseers of the Poor in each Parish had to
assess a rate, based on the Expenditure of the previous year.
For 1823, in Skelton, it was set at 7 shillings [35p] in the pound.
From time to time valuations were made
and by Law all those with property over £10 had to pay their dues
or be taken to Court.
It is said that the basis of these property valuations was "complex".
From the list below it can be seen that 86 people shared the bill in
Skelton in 1823, with Farmers being the main contributors.
|
| Strangely John Wharton of Skelton Castle, who had just spent
a fortune on rebuilding Skelton Castle and bribing the voters of
Beverley paid only a fifth of the highest amount. This was because the
lawmakers in Parliament, which
was mostly composed at that time of the landed gentry, had decided the
tenant of a property would pay rather than the owner.
|
|
£
|
s
|
d
|
|
£
|
s
|
d
|
|
£
|
s
|
d
|
John Wharton, Skelton Castle
|
6
|
4
|
3
|
Thomas Rigg, Farmer
|
14
|
3
|
6
|
Thomas King
|
11
|
11
|
0
|
Sarah Johnson
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Executors of Andrew Irvine
|
29
|
9
|
9
|
John Raper
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Mr John Andrew,
|
2
|
13
|
3
|
Ralph Lynas, Shopkeeper
|
0
|
17
|
6
|
James Cullen, Farmer
|
20
|
0
|
9
|
Robert Thompson
|
10
|
3
|
0
|
William Adamson, Farmer
|
32
|
12
|
9
|
William Wilkinson, Butcher
|
16
|
0
|
3
|
William Farndale
|
25
|
18
|
6
|
John Kell
|
0
|
12
|
3
|
Richard Wilson, Farmer
|
16
|
6
|
3
|
Isaac Wilkinson, Butcher
|
0
|
5
|
3
|
William Cooper, Farmer
|
2
|
9
|
0
|
Robert Tiplady, Farmer
|
3
|
8
|
3
|
John Rotherford
|
3
|
4
|
9
|
Thomas Shemelds, Shopkeeper
|
3
|
13
|
6
|
William Sayer
|
16
|
3
|
6
|
Reverend William Close
|
0
|
19
|
3
|
John Tease
|
0
|
5
|
3
|
William Lawson, Butcher
|
1
|
13
|
3
|
Stephen Emmerson, Farmer
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
William Bulmer
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
Elizabeth Appleton
|
2
|
12
|
6
|
William Taylor
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Robert Carlise
|
1
|
4
|
6
|
Robert Watson, Corn Miller
|
2
|
16
|
0
|
John Johnson
|
3
|
18
|
9
|
Robert Wilkinson
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
John Taylor
|
10
|
6
|
6
|
William Bean, Duke William Inn
|
2
|
10
|
9
|
William Hall, Farmer
|
20
|
4
|
3
|
Elizabeth Wilkinson, Shopkeeper
|
1
|
4
|
6
|
John Appleton, Farmer
|
13
|
11
|
3
|
Marmaduke Wilson, Carrier
|
0
|
15
|
9
|
Jackson Harden, Farmer
|
9
|
0
|
3
|
William Wilson
|
5
|
8
|
6
|
Edward Hall, Farmer
|
4
|
11
|
0
|
William Young, Blacksmith
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Ann Cole
|
2
|
13
|
0
|
Thomas Carter
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Samuel Corney
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
John Robinson
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
Thomas Clark, Farmer
|
5
|
6
|
9
|
E Hutton S Ableson, Weaver.
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
John Pybus
|
0
|
5
|
3
|
William Gowland, Plumber Glazier
|
1
|
11
|
6
|
William Hutton, Farmer
|
4
|
2
|
3
|
Duncan McNaughton
|
5
|
3
|
3
|
William Thompson
|
6
|
9
|
6
|
Robert Robinson, Blacksmith
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
William Sherwood, Farmer
|
18
|
12
|
9
|
Thomas Lowe
|
0
|
14
|
0
|
John Parnaby, Farmer
|
7
|
15
|
9
|
Michael Lowe
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
John Slater, Shopkeeper
|
3
|
18
|
9
|
Mark Carrick, Joiner
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
William Lockwood, Farmer
|
11
|
0
|
6
|
Joseph Middleton, Joiner
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
George Lynas, Cordwainer
|
1
|
4
|
6
|
Sarah Johnson, Farmer
|
17
|
4
|
9
|
John Hutchinson
|
14
|
5
|
3
|
Ralph Lynas, Tailor
|
0
|
14
|
0
|
Leonard Dixon
|
1
|
13
|
3
|
Edward Patterson
|
1
|
4
|
6
|
William Carrick
|
0
|
8
|
9
|
Michael Mark
|
1
|
7
|
0
|
Scarth Castley
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
William Dixon, Merchant
|
9
|
7
|
3
|
Robert Gill
|
2
|
12
|
6
|
Ralph Weatherill
|
0
|
10
|
6
|
John Abbott
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
James Watson
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Robert Wilkinson, Weaver
|
1
|
11
|
6
|
Isaac Hutton
|
0
|
14
|
0
|
John Hutton, Tailor
|
0
|
3
|
6
|
Widow Sayer
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Frank Thomas, Gamekeeper
|
0
|
17
|
6
|
William Lewes
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
Ann Thompson [widow]
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
451
|
4
|
9
|
|
In 1828 a re-valuation was ordered and this increased the number of ratepayers in Skelton to 184. Even those with a
rateable value of just 10 shillings [50p] had to pay 1s 10d [9p]. The total collected rose to £556 3s 5d.
This made the unwieldy system even harder for the Overseers to administer.
The relief given at that time was meagre and, unlike the modern Welfare State, the Poor Law did attempt to distinguish
between the deserving and the undeserving poor. Even so, like today, there was resentment
by rate-payers towards some claimants who were seen as work-shy malingerers milking the system. The movement of earnings
from the pockets of hard workers to non-workers was more visible than at present. The rules of Settlement blocked the
movement of labour and this was especially unsuitable to the growing towns. All these factors added to the causes that
brought about introduction of the Workhouse System in 1834.
|
|
