Martin’s work under the Parochial Assessment Act.

In 1834 the Poor Law Amendment Act radically overhauled the old Poor Law. Except in parishes which decided not to join a ‘Union’, ¹the role of Overseer of the Poor was abolished. Instead the newly formed Union was run by an elected Board of Governors. Martin was elected in 1855 as a Governor of the Beaminster Union, a post previously held by William Jennings Jnr. The Governors of the Union were answerable to the Poor Law Commissioner in London and had to obey the rules laid down by the Commission, although they had some discretion. It is commonly thought for example that the poor had to be incarcerated in workhouses but this was not the case. Outdoor relief was still an option if the Governor’s had agreed that it could continue. We do not know of Martin’s duties within the Union.

As has been mentioned in an earlier section the most important change to the Poor Laws to affect land surveyors was the Parochial Assessment act of 1837. Across the country parishes used a hotch potch of different methods to assess the Poor Rate and the act led to a standardised system based on “the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free from all usual tenants’ rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, and deducting therefrom the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent.” ²

The obvious time to assess for the rates was at the same time as tithe commutation and this was the case at Allington in 1838.

The most complete set of records where the tithe commutation and Poors’ rate were linked was at Fordington in 1845,

As well as at Fordington he probably assessed the tithe and poor’s rate together at Batcombe and Maiden Newton. Rent charges being associated with the tithe commutation,

Assessment to the Poor’s rate did not necessarily coincide with tithe commutation. In March 1838 he was at Corfe on the Poor’s rate where as commutation did not take place until 1843.

Robert Taylor was a man of independent means, described as a magistrate and fundholder in the 1851 census.

Valuations did not always go well. In August 1838 he had to return to Corfe,

Messrs W & J Pike owned the china clay pits at Norden and they had lodged an appeal against the rate that had been levied on them. Martin had seemingly rated them as mines when he should not have done. The result was that the appeal was lost and the mines had to be re-rated.

It was perhaps inevitable that errors such as these should occur when the Parochial Assessment Act was so new. It was not the only example of an appeal against the Poor rate. Earlier in the same year he had been involved in the Sherborne Poor Rate.

He returned four days later,

It is not clear what Martin’s role was in this assessment since the rate had been set by a colleague of his [with whom he worked on other occasions], Mr Edward Percy. This was not the end of the affair however although there are no more diary entries. Over the next month there were further public meetings of the Overseers and rate payers at Sherborne and it appeared the problem revolved around the allowances made to the owners of dwelling and business premises who fared better than the large landowners. A very public spat developed between Percy and another local surveyor Mr Poole which was fought out in the newspapers.

The Poor Rate assessments varied in their timings in relation to the tithe commutation. We have seen this with Corfe [above] but it also occurred at Rampisham where the Poor Rate was set by Martin in January 1838 a year before the commutation.

Occasionally he worked on the Poor rate without ever being involved with the tithes as at Broad Maine- where no commutation appears to have taken place- and at Chilthorne and Winterbourne Monkton where the tithes were commuted but not by him.

Sometimes he returned to revalue a parish as at Batcombe and at Child Okeford,

There are no diary entries for Child Okeford’s Poor’s rate before 1852 but as he did the tithe commutation in 1838 and inclosed it in 1845 it is likely that he had valued it for the Poor’s rate before. The Child Okeford assessment is recorded in their church warden accounts. “At a Vestry of the Rate Payers and owners of Property of the Parish of Child Okeford hold on the second day of April 1852 in pursuance of Notice given it was resolved that John Martin Esq of Evershot Dorset should make a Rate and Book of Particulars of the Parish of Child Okeford provided his charge for so doing did not exceed the sum of twenty pounds.”

Martin duly attended in June 1852,

His report was received in January 1853 and clearly caused consternation amongst the rate payers, so much so that to give full vent to their feelings and perhaps take a suitable sedative they had to adjourn from the church to the pub,

“At a Vestry meeting held by adjournment from the parish church to the Baker Arms Inn this 27th day of Janry 1853 to take into consideration the equality of a new Poor’s Rate made by John Martin Esq it is decided by a large majority that it was not equal and that it required revision and that Mr Martin be written thereon.”

It is not known what the outcome of this appeal was but the next entry comes in 1854, “At a Vestry held this 24th day of March of the Rate Payers and Owners of Property…..And that Mr Martins Bill thirty three pounds is considered three pounds more than agreed and that thirty pounds be paid by the Overseers to Mr Martin.”

Martin was old fashioned – his bills were often in guineas.