The Sun.
London, England, 1819-05-12 00:00:00

• WALLOP.
This case, which was heard on Wednesday, excited much
interest, pn account of the important consequences it in-
volved. It was an appeal from the Rev. Henry Wake,'Rector
of the purists of Ovcr Wallop, against the allowance 'if the
late Overseers' (Mr. Richard Titt, and Mr. Richard Hoilm;
way) accounts, in relation to certain payments made by them
to several individuals belonging to the parish, which the
appellant contended were illegal, as the said persons did not
come under that description authorised by the statute. In
support of the appeal, it was stated, that the farmers of Over
Wallop had instructed the Overseers to make. out a list of the
lahourers, and to distribute them according to the propertion
of the rate. This is termed stemniing. The rate amounted
to 1501., and there were about fifty labourers". The appel-
lant's assessment, at 2s. in the pound, amounted to nearly
one-fourth of the whole rate, and though he had but 40 acres
of glebe, under this system be would have 12" labourers
attested to Brarwrijohn. who occupied 14.00-
acres in the same parish, would have only the same number.
On Account of the lateness of the hoar, the Counsel for the
appellant said, they would not fatigue the Court by calling
more than seven labourers. The object was not so much to
get a large sum disallowed, as to abolish the system alto-
gether; The first witness called was James Baker, who de-
posed that he was married, and had a wife and five children.
He worked for fafmer Robert Barnes in the month of March,
1518, and received 6s. per week• in the winter of 1217, be
bad Os. and sometimes 10s.; at ehristmas 1816, be was paid
either Os. or 103. but during the last year he-only got from.
Mr. -Barnes Gs. He could not subsist on this, and went to
Mr. Heinen, the then Overseer, for some more money, who
made it up to 12s. Gd. which was about the price of a gallon
loaf and sixpence a head ; last April he received but Cs. and
nt to Mr. Titt, who was Overseer at the time, for anoney,
who made him the same allowance. The. year before he re-
ceived 193. a week. Mr. Barnes told him to go to the Or( r-
seers for work, as he had no employment for him ; at this
time there were two or three ricks in his barn unthrashed.—
On going to the Overseer, he teas desired to return to Mr.
Barnes, who then employed him at Cs. per week, the rest he
got front the Overseer, which was more than at the rate- of
10s. ; as he.received 4s. a week in addition to bread money,
and sixpence for each child ; he did not ask for relief, and if
lie could have carried 10s. at that time, he should not have
expected the weekly allowance of 4s, from the Overseer. Ir
the harvest and grass-mowing season he earned 10s.; and
during this period he did not apply to the Overseer.—
Last winter he was employed iu grubbing for Mr.' Cow-
dery, by the piece; was to have one shilling a lug,
and -go to the Overseer for a weekly allowance of four
shillings like the rest,,of the parish. Before last Christmas
the payment of the four shillings was discontinued by Mr.
Tilt, who told him to go before the Magistrates at Andover,
to apply for relief. The witness replied, he could not ask re-
lief, because, when he worked for himself, he reckoned his
labour worth 10s. a week : be afterwards went to Andover,
bat not before the Magistrate's. On the Monday, however,
he received his money at Mr. Titt's house. About two
months since he applied to Mr. 'Pitt, tit the church, who told
him it was no use for him to come there unless he came fur
relief, he was forced to say he wanted relief, otherwise
his wife and children must ha starved; he would not
have asked relief, had he been paid what he considered
a fair remuneration fer his labour, namely, 10s. per
week, which was the price at which it was estimated iri Over
Walhip parish. Ia his cross-examination, the witness stated
'that, taking the Gs. per week paid by the farmer, and the al-
lowance front the. parish, was 11101 e than equal to 10s per
week. The next witness was Harry Bevis, who stated, that
he was 55 years of age, and had a wife, and one daughter,
aged 27, whom lie supported. Ist April, 181 a, he worked
for Mr. Self, at 6s.aiur week; at the end of the month he
went to the Overseers, and was paid IGs.; he afterwards
went to Mr. Hillary; on the same terms, and was subse-
rviently- employed to thrash barley at Is. Gd. per quarter,
and received the same allowance from the Overseer; Mr.
Holloway had employed him at the same rate, and Ire went to
the poor hook for the rest; he went to Mr. Holloway's house,
and afterwards to the Church, and said he came there for
money the same as the others ; he should not have thrashed
the barley at Is. 6d. per quarter if it had not been-understood
that he was to receive an allowance from the poor-book—lie
should have been paid - Sts.:id. instead of Is. Gd. a quarter
The witness subsequently was employed by other farmers on
the saute terms. He recollected Mr. Titt once asking him if
he could maintain himself, Iris wife, and slaughter on 6s. per
week, and he replied be could not. 'Pitt then asked him if
he could get more ? He answered no, one shilling a day be-
ing Misting was given in the parish. lie remembered Tat
refusing to give him relief unless he went before a Magistrate;
he accordingly went to Andover before the Clerks pnly, and
nothing was done there ; /he then returned back to his parish,
and continued to receive 4s. a week. This was the substance
of the evidence, and tire testimorry of five other witnesses was
nearly of a similar import. The Learned Chairman having ob-
served upon the•evidence,the Court were unanimously otopi-
nion, that the payment of a portion of the labourer's wages
out of the poor rate was illegal, and should he disallowed. It
was suggested that the accounts should be referred to two
Magistrates, or to two Counsel 'rut of Court, to fix the sum
to be disallowed; but the Counsel for the respondents having
expressed a wish that a particular• sum should be named,
251. was mentioned, to which Mr. Wake instantly aseenten,
and the late Overseers were directed to pay over that sum,
together with the balance remaining in their hands to
the succeeding Overseers of the parish. The Noble Chair-
man • then, at the request of the Magistrates, rose to ex-
press his most marked disapprobation of the baneful sys-
tem which had been adopted in this parish, of eking out.
the wages of the poor man's labour from the, pour rates.