Whereas Joseph Blackburn of Wigton in the parish of Wigton
in the county of Cumberland hath made with oath before me
Thomas Wilson Dr in Divinity one of his majesty’s Justices
of the Peace and for the said county that he the said
Joseph Blackburn is poor and not able to provide for himself
and family and that he did on Sunday last the 25th of April 1773
apply for Relief to Mr Isaac Lightfoot Overseer of Wigton
in the said Parish of Wigton and was by him refused
to be relieved & whereas the said Isaac Lightfoot hath
appeared before me but he hath not shewed any sufficient
Cause why the said Joseph Blackburn should not be relieved
I do therefore hereby order the said Isaac Lightfoot Overseer
of the Poor of Wigton in the Parish of Wigton aforesaid to pay
unto the said Joseph Blackburn immediately upon producing
this Order the Sum of five shillings and afterwards
weekly and every week the sum of four shillings
for and towards the Support and maintenance of
himself and family until such time as he shall be
otherwise ordered according to Law to forbear the
said allowance. Given under my Hand and Seal
at Carlisle in the said County the twenty-ninth Day of
April one thousand seven hundred and seventy three
Tho Wilson
The handwritten order above, dated 29 April 1773, from Thomas Wilson, Justice of the Peace and Dean of Carlisle Cathedral, has raised a number of questions about the relationship between Wilson and Isaac Lightfoot, the Overseer of Wigton. On the face of it, it seems very straightforward. Pauper Joseph Blackburn had applied to Lightfoot requesting assistance for himself and his family. Lightfoot refused. Blackburn appealed the decision by applying to Wilson. This was part and parcel of the Poor Law process. If they were not satisfied with the decision made by an overseer, claimants could go to the quarter sessions and ask the magistrates to review it. As happened in this case, magistrates could overrule an overseer’s decision and stipulate what provision should be made for the claimant.
This is a handwritten order, but what is interesting is that there are two different colours of ink used. Most of it is in black including the statement that Lightfoot had appeared before Wilson but had failed to show sufficient cause to explain his refusal to assist Blackburn. Blackburn’s name, the date and the amount to be paid over, however, are all written in a sepia colour. This raises the possibility that this was not an isolated incident. The use of what looks like a standard response pre-prepared by Wilson or a clerk acting on his behalf leaving gaps to be filled in later, suggests that Wilson was in the habit of over-ruling Lightfoot’s decisions. One of our volunteers wondered how many cases were referred during Lightfoot’s tenure as overseer, before adding, ‘By refusing support he would look to be on the side of the rate payers, and when ordered to pay up by the Quarter Sessions he was not seen to be responsible for the expenditure!’ Perhaps a trawl through the quarter sessions may offer an answer. Equally, are there any other instances of this occurring in other parishes in Cumberland, East Sussex or Staffordshire?
Sources
Cumbria Archives, Carlisle, PR36/V/3/9, Wigton Quarter, Overseers’ Vouchers, Jos Blackburn’s order
Edgar Miller, ‘English pauper lunatics in the era of the old poor law’, History of Psychiatry 23(3) 2012, 321.