SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



rule, and to direct the clerk of the peace to indict anyone found guilty of 

 such a misdemeanour. They added in explanation of the second recommen- 

 dation that the Acts were to be carried into effect by the magistrates so as to 

 force the employer to pay an adequate price for his labour a curious state- 

 ment, when the original object of the labour statutes is considered. 



The court also stated with great emphasis that the appropriation of 

 money raised for the relief of the poor to able-bodied labourers was a gross 

 misapplication, and that the accounts of overseers guilty of such misapplica- 

 tion ought not to be allowed. Three parishes are mentioned as having 

 enforced the proper payment of their labourers Whitchurch, Aston Clinton, 

 and Weston Turville. The following year the justices realized that the scale 

 of wages, last fixed in 1765, was far below the rates that ought to be paid for 

 labour, and therefore a new rate was to be drawn up. The new scale was 

 published at the next Easter sessions, and in it the wages for all kinds of 

 labour were practically doubled, the lowest payment of a man per day being 

 is. 6d. The rates for carriage were also increased, particularly in the case of 

 long distances. 



The protest seems to have had little or no effect. At Aylesbury there is still 

 the Parish Labour Register from 1804-13, giving full details of the amounts 

 paid weekly to different labourers, still much below the full rate of wages. 



The effect on the labourers themselves was all that the report had said. 

 As early as 1795 at Winslow they were described as having become 'very 

 lazy and imperious.' There was also difficulty in obtaining labour, since 

 men found it paid them better to do but little work and receive a large 

 amount of relief. 818 



In 1826 a large land-holder at Aylesbury was summoned before the 

 magistrates for having refused to pay his poor rate. His defence was that in 

 consequence of the relief given to able-bodied men he could get no one to 

 work for him. He had found 300 people waiting at his farm to lease his 

 corn, but even though he could not get in his crops for want of men, no one 

 of the 300 would accept employment, since they could do better with the 

 overseers. 



The highest figure at Aylesbury in the expenditure was reached in 

 1 8 1 6, but the succeeding years showed a considerable decline, probably owing 

 to the appointment of a paid assistant overseer. This reform was due to the 

 recommendations of a Committee of the House of Commons, whose inquiry 

 revealed the worst features of the system. Few of their suggestions were 

 carried out, except the appointment of assistant overseers. At Aylesbury he 

 received a yearly salary of 52, an( i was a bl e to devote the whole of his time 

 to the control of poor relief, with the result that the expenses were reduced, 

 till in 1826 the annual expenditure was less, by more than 2,000, than it was 

 in 1 8 17. In other parishes, however, no such reduction took place, an extreme 

 case being found at Cholesbury, where the poor rates had been 10 I is. in 

 1 80 1, but in 1832 had risen to 367. No further increase was then 

 possible, since the poor rate had eaten up the value of the land, and farms 

 were standing empty. 



" The scarcity in women's labour was due to their employment in the lace and straw-plaiting manufac- 

 tures. In the former they could make from yd. to I/. \d. a day, and in the latter jo/, a week in some cases. 

 St. John Priest, op. cit. 



87 



