(Part 2, Chapter 3, Section 3) ( Bk. Index )

[ Civil Parish ]

3. The Parish and Union Workhouse 1806 - 1834

In 1834 Poor Law Reform had some direct local effects, but the Gilbert Union was not abolished.

Why Join a Union?
On the 5th May 1806, Angmering, together with neighbours Poling and Rustington, joined the East Preston Union of Parishes, bringing the total of parishes in union to nineteen at which number it remained until reform in 1868. The reasons for this are obscure, and could not be divined at an Inquiry into the workhouse only thirty eight years later in 1844. The Assistant Commissioner of the Poor Law Board suggested:

The first incorporation consisted of five parishes, with no considerable population, and it is probable that the conjunction was effected with a view of obtaining a more efficient workhouse and staff of workhouse officers than the parishes could separately maintain.  
The establishment of a workhouse and the employment of officers, together with the temporary depauperizing effect which the change of system produced on the formation of Gilbert's Unions, may have induced some of the other parishes to join the union, whilst it is not improbable that others sought to be included in   consequence of dissension amongst the inhabitants, or by the desire of some of the inhabitants to participate in the festivities which took place at the monthly meetings at the workhouse. 

Was there an economic motive for Angmering joining? There might seem to have been if bare totals of expenditure on poor relief over a number of years is considered. In 1801-2 a peak of £1937, falling to rather over £1000 twenty five years later. But this ignores another peak in 1812-13 at £1980. 

From 1801 parish population increased from 708 to 793 in 1811 and 897 by 1821.  This might seem to justify the idea that economies were made in the long run. But mere bank notes do not tell the whole story. The real value of the pound at any time was largely related to the price of wheat, and therefore of bread. At the same time local farmers profiting from high prices could afford larger rate bills to subsidise wages, but with this offset during years of very poor harvests.

Angmering Parish poor rates and other income Disbursements
As in detailed half year disbursements Par 6/31/1


£1937   rate total

120s per quarter wheat















































































1813 had a good harvest in England, which explains the low price of corn the following year. On the other hand poor harvests in 1800, 1809 and 1812, had the opposite effect. Excluding those exceptional years prices were fairly even, but falling. Although Angmering was not in the Union until 1806, the treatment of paupers at the workhouse was no doubt reflected by their treatment outside.  The rates paid for keep of the inmates varied from time to time, but improved perhaps by 50 percent in real terms after 1800,  before worsening under the influence of the Poor Law Board after 1834. The implication is that economies were in force to begin while rates were high. Then the treatment of poor people could improve as the poor rate fell. One particular change in the allowance, in 1822, had the Guardians worried that there might be “disaffection among some of the paupers”  and probably there was, but this was not a return to 1800.

Since the workhouse was provided for waifs and the old and sick, the few that Angmering housed there was of little significance to the unemployed or working majority.  Angmering joined the Union to make use of what should have been an efficiently run poorhouse, providing cheaper maintenance than possible outside. A sick or elderly person nursed in their home by a relative receiving an allowance, was less efficient than a poorhouse with many inmates and very few staff.

The Cost and Inmates
The first years expenses for running the workhouse Preston House, apportioned to Angmering came to £52.  As a fraction of poor relief by the parish of £1510 it barely rippled the water. At the same time bonds had to be raised from local investors as a share in the cost of the building itself, and of enlargements made in 1806. "for the Purpose of purchasing, building, erecting, repairing, fitting up, and furnishing a convenient House, Building and Offices for the Reception Accommodation and Employment of the Poor of the said Parish and for providing suitable Stock and Utensils for the Purpose".   Some nine bonds mentioned would have raised £450. These were purchased by Mr Cortis with four, Miss Tompkins with two, as also Sarah Woods, and Mr Wyatt just one, and for these the Union paid five percent interest [WG/2/2]. These should have been paid off in twenty years but were not. Joseph Henley surveyor, is quoted in the Sussex Advertiser as the architect for the original house and its 1806 enlargement.

In 1801 the population of Angmering was 708, and the 19 parishes that eventually came into union 5900. By 1831 Angmering still only had 928 inhabitants, whereas the Union had increased to 12157 mainly because of the expanding towns of Littlehampton and Broadwater [Worthing].  This might not have been significant but for the way the workhouse was financed. The running costs of  House itself, apart from its inmates, was financed by quotas charged on each parish based on their average poor relief expenditure over three years, not on the basis of population or rateable values. But even though Angmering did not join until 1806, the average was calculated for the year the workhouse was founded 1792. Since a village like Angmering had a greater unemployment problem than the towns, and since they were expanding in population, so Angmering had what may be thought an unfair burden of cost.

In 1806 [using 1801 census figures] Angmering had 12% of union population but almost 17% of establishment funding, while Broadwater had nearly 17% of population and only 10% funding, while Littlehampton had 10% of population and 6% funding. 

The rates paid by Angmering in three years 1833 to 35, were calculated as averaging £848, when wheat cost 46s quarter. This formed the basis of a new formula for workhouse funding in 1835. Broadwater now had 21% of funding with 38% of Union population, and now Angmering had its share reduced to 13%, although its population was only 8% of the whole Union. The villages continued to bear disproportionate costs in population terms.

As a snapshot of poor relief in 1825-6 Littlehampton had 81 on relief with 36 permanent, about 6% of population. Broadwater 148, with 55 permanent, or less than 5% of population. While Angmering was stated to have as many as 109 on relief, 86 permanent, at 12% of population, and many of the villages were worse placed than that.  Naturally this was far better than in 1802-3 when Angmering had 30% on relief, Littlehampton 35% and Broadwater over 9%.

Paupers or inmates keep was  charged to the parishes per capita, on a scale related to the price of corn.  That is to say according to the current Agreement, in which if corn was say £10 a load the paupers weekly keep would be say 2s 9d, or some other amount, and each parish would be billed this amount  for each inmate from that place.   If Angmering had 12 paupers in the House and the rate was 2s 9d, its bill would be 33s each week. The workhouse after 1806 had a nominal capacity of 70 inmates, although more could be accommodated. Of the many inhabitants on relief very few could possibly enter the house, and in the 1820s and 30s Angmering only had an average varying about six as inmates, Broadwater 5 rising to above 7 and Littlehampton between 5 and 6. These were old men females and children.

The bill paid for paupers was complicated by the fact that each parish had a quota, and if they sent in less than that number to the House then a charge was made for each inmate less, usually 1s 6d each week. With a quota of 13, Angmering had to pay ‘deficiencies’ in most years.

For the bulk of those on temporary or permanent relief, little had changed since 1806, the parish guardian and overseer carried on with policies that were little changed.

As might be expected from the overall overseers disbursements each year, and the price of wheat, the workhouse bills were at their peak around 1813, running well over one hundred pounds each half year. By the 1820s a considerable reduction took place and in 1824/5 the bill was £112, 1825/6 under £97, and 1826/7 about £96.

Guardians at the Workhouse
The Guardians for Angmering, elected by the £5 ratepayers, were theoretically in charge of relief in the parish and in charge of the Overseers who administered relief.

With the parish joining the Union in 1806, the first guardian is named at the Board Meeting in June, Henry Amoore signing for the Angmering accounts.  The first meeting of each financial year took place in May with the next incoming guardian signing.

1806     H Amoore
1807     John Penfold
1808     Geo French until 1821
1821     Geo Amoore
1822     Geo Cortice [sic] later Cortis to 1825
1825     Jn Heasman
1826     Wm Amoore
1827     Geo Cortis
1828     Thos Amoore until 1834
[WG2/2 and WG2/3]

The most notable name in this period, George French, was the farmer at Barpham. A long way from there to meetings at East Preston, and also a place not readily in touch with the village of Angmering. Thomas Amoore occupied the combined Old and New Place farms, another substantial farmer as may be expected for this office.

There is a slight suspicion that Board debates were not all business-like, with wagers by the Visitor and others meticulously recorded in one of the later minute books [WG2/4].  As in June 1843, when George Olliver of Durrington bet the Visitor one bottle of wine that the sliding scale would be set aside or done away with in the next session of Parliament, and in 1842 a wager on the price of wheat.  At least they had been discussing poor law matters.

Guardians in the Parish
Once elected the guardian was in control of poor relief in his parish, but paupers could appeal to the local magistrate until this right was repealed in 1834. The Visitor in executive control of the workhouse would also hear appeals, although little is known of these. The Board of Guardians did not interfere with decisions made by the parish authorities.

It is probable the Angmering guardian left most parish business to the two overseers, merely having an overview and checking the accounts, unless called in for some specific purpose. The vestry minute book contains yearly accounts and these were signed by the overseers. Mr French and other guardians signed parish accounts as members of the vestry, and as guardians signed for the yearly payments to the workhouse for paupers in its care.

After the initial payment in 1806, the first signed bill seen in 1807 was for £29 – 10s 11½d paid into the hands of John Penfold. Subsequent bills were in the name of Mr French and those who took over from him.  Although the overseer was paid, there is no indication of any salary to the parish guardian in these years before the 1834 Act.

Education and Children’s Employment
Children at that time could expect little education if they were poor. Schools attached to churches and dame schools were the best generally found in local villages. Angmering was exceptionally fortunate in its Older’s Charity School. Children at the workhouse do not appear to have had any provision until 1832 when a daughter of the master there began teaching reading – writing was not specified. Therefore the main occupation they enjoyed was in the sack manufactory which was set up when the house opened. James Float was in charge of this operation even before he married the widowed matron. Since he took the profit from the sale of sacks to farmers, it can only be guessed how nicely he worked the boys and indeed girls.

Overseers of the Parish
Overseers of the Poor were established under Elizabethan Poor Laws and continued after Unions were created. After the reform of the Union they became little more than collectors of the rates and the office ceased in 1925. Although Guardians were elected when the parish joined the Gilbert Union in 1806, these officers seem to have kept themselves fairly aloof and the Overseers continued to administer relief largely unhindered. The onerous tasks of overseer and assistant overseer were revolved through the available £5 ratepayers year to year.
Before the acquisition of a Vestry Hall, meetings had to be held where opportune, and the most natural places at hand were the Lamb Inn and Red Lion, with all comforts provided. All their annual accounts were confirmed by magistrates, at least after 1820, as well as the guardian, which is not to say administration was good merely that it balanced.

1801-02            G French and T Amoore
1802                 Wm Miles and John Penfold 
1803                 Wm French and G Cortis
1804                 Wm Amoore and H Baker
1805                 Thos Olliver and Geo Cortis
Union joined in 1806
1806                 Tho Olliver and Geo Cortis
1807                 Tho Olliver and Geo Cortis
1808                 Tho Olliver and James Olliver
1809                 Tho Amoore and Tho Olliver
1810                 Harry Baker and Stephen Holmwood
1811                 James and George Cortis
1812                 James Grant and Tho Olliver
1813                 James Olliver and Wm Amoore
1814                 G Amoore and Geo Baker overseers
1815                 John Holmwood and Geo Cortis
1816                 James Cortis and James Grant              
1817                 James Towse and Wm Amoore
1818                 James Olliver and Thos Olliver
1819                 George Amoore and Henry Baker
1820                 John Stephen Holmwood and George Cortis
1821                 Henry Baker and James Cortis
1822                 Wm Amoore and Wm Miles
1823                 Wm Amoore and Olliver Penfold
1824                 Geo Grant and John Cortis until 1826-27
Accounts taken in 1829 have salaries but included with other expenses for various people. The surgeon Mr Bryass, parish constable Edward Smith, and overseer George Grant. There is also an agreement to pay Mr James Olliver a salary of £15 as waywarden, or highway supervisor.

Headings in tables at the rear of an account book, [Par6/31/2] provide some idea of how relief was organised although how the rules and criteria for each division changed is not obvious.
The primacy of relief to children and females is evident.

“1827    Summary of Weekly Expenditure in the Parish of Angmering 4th Quarter”
Permanent pay to orphans and widows and sick               £72
Casual pay to do                                                            £11
Permanent pay to others                                                £42
Casual pay to others                                                      £7
Permanent pay to illegitimate children                              £9        
Casual pay to illegitimate children                                   nil
Paid for work                                                                 nil
Expense for journeys                                                      nil
Books and letters                                                           nil
Bad tax                                                                         nil
Cash paid for coals                                                        £6        
Funeral expenses                                                          £3        
Expense at Meeting                                                       nil
Law expenses                                                               £26      
Cash paid for children in service                                      £60      
County rates                                                                  £19      
Overseers salary                                                            £19      
Doctors salary and bills                                                  £12      
Sundries                                                                       nil
Preston House expenses                                                £81
[Total for quarter]                                                            £368    
[Rounded to nearest pound in this copy]

Expenses for journeys by the overseer would often have been to Arundel and Petworth for the quarter sessions and perhaps visits to the House of Correction. “1832 At a Meeting at the Lamb Inn March 23rd it was agreed that the Overseers to receive 7s each journey to Arundel and the same proportion to other places viz 10/6 to Petworth.”

At a later workhouse inquiry, Mr Grant a former overseer, stated that before the 1834 Act “We used to allow by the justices orders 1s 6d a head for every child that a man had above two, the justices never took into consideration the man's earnings”. This head payment is confirmed by the poor law returns of 1834 for Angmering, and was presumably general through the district.  It was in fact made according to the price of flour and so the amount varied much as the workhouse pauper rate varied. Some variations on this are evident, for in 1827 the vestry decided, “Not to allow pay for the 3rd Child until 10 weeks old” although that was soon changed back again. Single men were expected to have some savings, and relief was not readily given.

In some circumstances the parish looked after children for which it was found not strictly liable, under settlement laws. The responsible parish would then reimburse Angmering for expenses. Cash recd of Burpham Parish for Souters Child 104 weeks at 1s 6d  -  £7-16s” [Par 6/31/2] Paternity had to be established for this purpose, as in 1827 when Mary Short was taken to Arundel to be examined by the magistrates, “her Parish is Angmering, Swore her child to Jas Stanmer jun.” Occasionally absconding men had to be advertised for, ”Thos Harmer in Lewes Newspaper offering a Reward of £2 2s 0d.” [Par6/12/1] 

There was  growing concern about ‘surplus population’, not unlike today.  The only answer then was the obvious one of emigration to the open spaces of the Colonies, in Canada and Australia. In the 1870s a scheme at the workhouse sent children to Canada, but Angmering pre-empted this by forty years when it financed emigration, In March 1832 a committee of nine including the rector, selected seven children to form the initial party at a rate of £11 each, with a fund of £200 to be raised. How this was calculated and the organisational details are obscure. Robert and John Goddard, Francis Jordan, Richard Woods, Wm and Eliza Grevatt, and Fanny Hopkins, made up this happy band.  Miss Laud lent the churchwardens £100 at five percent [6/12/1] and £65 of this had been paid back by the following year [6/31/3]. Later in 1833 a note was made of “two families transport to London Docks bound for Canada” at a cost of £9. Emigration from Lord Egremont’s Petworth estates at this time took around 1800 people to Canada.

[1832] “As a memorandum it is inserted in this Vestry Book that the Sum of One Hundred Pounds has been taken up by Note of Hand (signed by the Churchwardens and Overseers at the time being) of Miss Susan Laud at the rate of five per cent per annum chargeable principal and interest on the Parish Rate agreeable to a General Vestry held on the 8th day of March Instant this memo Signed by the Persons at this Meeting
Geo Grant  Thos Amoore   Wm Miles  Jn Cortis  Oliver Penfold  James Grant  George French  Rich Amoore  Henry Baker”

Another way to deal with waifs in particular, was to apprentice them and preferably outside the parish. Kingston had this to a fine art, and Messrs Olliver kept the population there limited to servants of the estate. At Angmering a number of young people were apprenticed by the parish over these years, and typically in 1806 Thomas Smith was sent to Samuel Robarts of Arundel for a term of 6 years the overseers paying a premium of £10.  The following year J. Shelley went to Miss Steward of Littlehampton with £15 paid. [6/31/1] 

Rather more complete details were provided in1830, with “Robert Goldring Apprenticed to Wm Parish of Little Hampton Captain of the Violet until the age of 21 years Receiving £50 viz £10 first year £10 second year £10 3rd year £20 last year which will expire July 25th 1834” [6/12/1]

These were legally binding contracts, no doubt approved by the magistrate. Most children cared for by the parish were put out a time honoured way to local householders as ‘children in service’. 

In Service
A half year account in 1828, mainly children’s payments but also the workhouse and salaries etc. The list is reproduced here is simplified form. Pennies have not been included and most sums given in shillings.[5p]  
Householder                  [children]                       half year pay
Geo Wicks                    Mary Tuesly                  33 shillings [165p]
George Grant                 Ann Jordan                    20s
do                                 Mary Smart                   46s
Thos Jarrett                   James Hayler                33s
Thos Hodston                Mary Monk                    33s
Jas Grant jun                 Aldridge                        33s
do                                 Wm Luff                        41s
do                                 Geo Compton                28s
Jas Grant snr                 Ann Roberts                  33s
do                                 Mark M...                      41s
W Phillips                     C Clements                   33s
Geo Blunden                 Clements                      33s
Joseph Squires              Harmer                          46s
Rich Longhurst              Ann Ball                        52s
John Heasman               Rob Goldring                 41s
Geo Knight snr              H Riddles                      41s
John Cortis                    W Ruell                         41s
Nath Sayers                  Chas Compton               54s
H Baker                        Wady's Child                 £5 – 4s
do                                 Kings Family Worthing   £7 – 16s
John Amoore                 Jas Knight                     52s
Jas Sayers                    Furlongers Children        £6 – 10s
Miss Swan and Baker    T Newall?                      54s
Cash W Bryass             Bill and Salary               £12 – 16s
Geo Grant                     Overseers Salary etc      £19
Mr Geo Cortis                Preston House Bill         £80 - 14s
W Nye                          Bill Funeral bill & exp     64s
Mess Holmes                Bill                                £26 - 7s
Mr W Amoore                ,,,,,,                              12s
Mr Geo Corney              coals                            £6 – 6s
[Total]                                                               £368 -14s

Work by Day and Night
That unemployed men were, rather contradictorily, found work by sending them to farmers in the district, is altogether clear. In those days a parish was on its own, and paid men in the normal way for employment or paid them out of the rates for whatever employment could be found. The flaws in the parochial based system were becoming ever more acute as England industrialised, and as town diverged from countryside. Even on the local scale Angmering was at a disadvantage compared to Worthing [Broadwater].

There are some intriguing notes about this in the usual cryptic style. In 1827, “Give Wm Budd 5s as a reward for Not going on the Road to Work.” In other words parish employment repairing roads, and the assumption must be that he continued to live on his own resources for a few more weeks.  The rate of pay for road work in 1828 was given as, for a married man with two children, 10s a week and that went down to 9s 6d later in the year. [6/12/1] A living wage for small family? barely!.

But in 1833 Edward Dash became rather colourful in his language on being refused work, perhaps he too had some residual resources to live on. “Edw Dash this day says if no work found him during the day he will work in the Night” A well known threat that had been heard previously in the district, notably during the Peasants Revolt or Swing Riots of 1830. It was said then, by a local farmer, that this meant either poaching game, or even smuggling, not perhaps on the boats but as one of the batmen protecting smugglers landing on the coast.

Perplexing notes which may refer to pauper employment, are contained in one of the very occasional accounts for half-year income, in 1827. [Par6/31/2] There are the usual odds and ends with the poor rate of £643 representing all but £40 of the total. Much of the remainder is made up of payments to farmers.

1827 half year
Cash recd of Mr Geo Cortis 5 Chord Roots                       35s
of RW Walker Esq for 2 Chord [Roots]                             20s
Cash recd of Mr W Amoore 2 Chord Roots                       16s
Cash recd for 22 ½ Chord Roots [W Amoore?]                 121s 6d
Cash recd of Mr West ½ Chord Roots                              10s 6d
Cash recd for Roots – sundries   [Geo Amoore?]              74s 6d

Which is a total 277s 6d or almost £15.
Ignoring the last composite item, that is 32 cords of roots, costing 202s at under 7s a cord but as much as 10s

A cord was usually a measure of wood for fuel of 128 cubic feet. It can be taken that foraging for fuel included digging up tree and bush stumps and roots. This must have been an occasion when areas needed clearing and parish labour was employed, with the respective owners paying the overseers.

It is difficult to make out what the basis was for coal transactions. No doubt for the benefit of poor people but the rules or methodology is not evident. Clearly coal was purchased from merchants, as in 1807 when four chaldrons at a rate of 36 shillings were purchased from William Laing costing £7-14s. Or in 1818 when Mr Richard Isemonger received £13-10s, presumably for eight chaldrons, and in 1828 when George Corney supplied coal. Assuming the London Chaldron, this measure amounted to 36 bushels or about 28cwt.  Therefore eight chaldrons was a considerable amount, if a household used as much as 2cwt in a week. it might have supplied 28 houses for a month. Tables at the end of the account books include ‘cash paid for coals’.

There are notes of widows being allowed 6d each week for coals, in 1827. What quantity they could buy for this is not known, but if it gave them adequate heating they were not paying the full price. Yet there are no lists of pauper recipients. In 1801 names like William Drewett and William Miles  appear, paying from a few shillings up to several pounds for undisclosed quantities of coal. The impression is that they may have been collecting the fuel and passing it on to cottagers.

Much later, in 1847, the rector records donations by him to a ‘coal fund’. [Par 6/6/2] This must have been a new scheme, a genuine charity, replacing the former overseers system.

Clothes and Leather
In addition to regular weekly allowances to the needy, there are constant references to clothes and some other items, provided according to need. [6/12/1] This was rather as in the 18th century, with the provision of shoes, Angmering having many a cobbler, shoemaker, or cordwainer. For these it seems a supply of leather was regularly obtained by the overseers, pauper quality maybe. There are notes to “Buy Wm Chessell £5 of Leather” in 1827, with more supplies through to the 1830s. In 1828 he was guaranteed all of £20 worth. The cost of new shoes varied around 5s, as in 1827, “Wm Fields boy 5s shoes”.

Clothes were seldom specified in detail, but under a pound up to £2 was the varied allowance. “Meeting at Lamb Inn May 30th 1828 - Mary Tuesleys clothes 40s - Hannah Aldridge clothes 40s” In a couple of instances items are named, with John Connor supplied with a Round Frock or smock. John Grevatt a blanket and William Field, no doubt a labourer, what reads as a ‘truss’ are amongst the unusual supplies. However the going rate for clothes supplied to “Girls getting places” was 30s. It was then and long into the 20th century the common thing for girls to leave home for service in the houses of the middling classes, and greater landowners. 

Since the vestry owned Longback Cottages there was no reason for them to pay rent to an intermediary for them, on the contrary any rent would have been paid to the overseers by the occupants. In fact nothing whatsoever is mentioned of Longback.

There are regular payments, in the disbursement books, to Mr Thomas Olliver and Mr George Cortis successively of “Cottage Rents” from at least 1817 to 1827 and beyond. The amounts are somewhat variable from £8 in the half year in 1827 to £13-5s in 1817, which might reflect a falling rent, but may rather reflect varying uptake of cottages they owned. Naturally, rented for poor families without breadwinners.

Thomas Olliver died in 1819 and much of his estate passed to George Cortis, including the eight Barrack Cottages. There is no mention in the accounts of such a name or number of cottages, but any guess as to the identity of the dwellings being rented would certainly put that block of tenements top of the list. With the workhouse mainly used for the elderly infirm, and young children, a village the size of Angmering would have needed the 19th century equivalent of social housing.

Widows Gift
It can be imagined that various charitable gifts were lumped together by the overseers, to provide annual dividends or interest, which may have been referred to as the “widows gift”.  John Manning’s £20 for “poor widows” providing the bulk of this from 1724. Village historian, Edwin Harris, suggested the widows charity had been connected to Longback Cottages and those housed there. A variable figure around £1 -13s appears in half year accounts, but no information has been seen concerning recipients. At five per cent that would be the accumulated yearly interest of several charities.

Parish Doctor
There was considerable debate about whether permanent employment of surgeons or doctors was permitted, by the law. It became general in the South of England at the end of the 18th century, although the 1601 and Gilbert Acts did not evidently provide this power, until 1834. The overseers were presumably expected to call a doctor only as needed.

It is unclear whether all parishes in the Union employed their own doctors, medical men, or surgeons, apart from the surgeon employed by the workhouse itself for sick people there. Round about 1840 both Littlehampton and Broadwater did so, as might be expected in large towns, but the only village presently known to have had a doctor was Angmering. Nevertheless, it was stated at the 1844 Inquiry that the various parishes did elect medical officers to attend their poor sick inhabitants.

In 1829 the Vestry agreed to employ Mr Bryass at a salary of “£20 for attendance on the Poor of the Parish of Angmering for one Year to include every thing but Midwifery and the Distance not to exceed 5 miles from Arundel Bridge and Mr Bryass engages to call on the Overseer twice in every Week to know who is sick.” [6/12/1]  There are parish accounts as early as 1815 for his expenses, but when a doctor was first engaged is not yet evident. Interestingly Mr Bryass had been the workhouse surgeon, and the employment of him by the parishes themselves would seem a logical extension of this duty. 

The brevity of notes by the overseers are such that nothing can be said about why various people needed medical care. Among instances, In 1829 it was agreed to send the doctor to Haylor, and in 1831 “order the doctor for Ann Monk”.  [6/12/1]  At least general practitioners had to be licensed since 1815, after approved training, however little they could do for patients, perhaps not even innoculate for smallpox as yet.

Very often nursing care was needed, rather than medicine, and midwives were on constant call. Sick people might need a relative, or more professional nurse to tend them. As in 1827 when James Budd was allowed 2s 6d a week for a nurse, leaving us to guess why or who.

Workhouse Doctor
At the workhouse a surgeon or doctor was permanently employed from about 1818, when paid a salary of £21, which reduced to £15 in the cost cutting year of 1822, at which rate he continued until after 1834. The parish doctor, Mr Bryass, had his salary cut from £20 to £15 in 1833, but his conditions of employment remained the same except that now attendance was required to a distance of 6 miles from Arundel.
Whether at the last a parishioner died at home or in the workhouse, he had to be buried by his parish in its churchyard. A typical entry has the undertaker, “Paid John Pullen, for Coffin [for] Haylors Son 17s 6d.”

RWS 1/11/2009 RWS